.^¦^l

' 'I-givg thfff;£pQ^
forpie-foiinitin^ cf wCotltgei&^f^iS^jQopnLyf

"Y^LU'WIMIIYEIE^IIirY"

Bought with the income of the
Eldward Wells Southworth
Fund, 1915"

THE
WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
OF
DANIEL WEBSTER

i3att0ttal dBtiitian

VOLUME FIVE

THE NATIONAL EDITION OF THE
WRITINGS &• SPEECHES OF DANIEL
WEBSTER IS LIMITED TO ONE
THOUSAND AND FIFTY COPIES
THIS SET IS NUMBER..<^.7- 

Daniel Webster
From the Bust by Thomas Ball

SlPlE€ffillE5

aSHL Wl

Iid1^»)) jit

m \gmm\iK^ ^©[Licxiii^

> ^
-K^

^i'^^^^^*^

I. ¦\jk_
^^^.-.>
»J~^1-:1::3#-
^©LID:^! riWi
The Writings and Speeches of
DANIEL WEBSTER
In Eighteen Volumes • National
Edition • Illustrated with Portraits
and Plates • VOLUME FIVE
SPEECHES IN CONGRESS, Etc.

BOSTON • LITTLE, BROWN, & COMPANY
NE^ rORK • J. F- TAYLOR & COMPANY
NINETEEN HUNDRED AND THREE

Copyright, 1903,
By Little, Brown, and Company.

UNIVERSITY PRESS • JOHN WILSON
AND SON ¦ CAMBRIDGE, V. S. j\.

DEDICATION!

TO
CAROLINE LE ROY WEBSTER
My dearly beloved Wife:
I cannot allow these volumes to go to the press, without containing a
tribute of my affections, and some acknowledgment of the deep interest that
you have felt in the productions which they contain. You have witnessed
the origin of most of them, not with less concern, certainly, than has been
felt by their author ; and the degree of favor with which they may now be
received by the public will be as earnestly regarded, I am sure, by you as by
myself. The opportunity seems, also, a fit one for expressing the high and warm
regard which I ever entertained for your honored father, now deceased, and
the respect and esteem which I cherish towards the members of that amiable
and excellent family to which you belong.
DANIEL WEBSTER.
1 Volume III, Edition of 185 1.

CONTENTS

Speeches in the Convention to Amend the Constitution
of Massachusetts Page
Qualifications for Office  3
Remarks on the Report of a Select Committee relative to Oaths and
Subscriptions, made in the Convention on the 4th of December,
1820.
Basis of the Senate  8
Speech in the Convention on a Resolution proposing to divide the
Commonwealth into Districts according to Population, for the
Choice of Senators, delivered on the 15th of December, 1820.
Independence of the Judiciary  26
Remarks made on the 30th of December, 1820, upon a Resolution
to make the Officers of the Judiciary removable by the Governor
and Council upon the Address of Two Thirds, instead of a
Majority, of each Branch of the Legislature.

Speeches in Congress
Bank of the United States  . 35
A Speech delivered in the House of Representatives of the United
States, on the 2d of January, 181 5.
The Legal Currency  48
A Speech delivered in the House of Representatives of the United
States, on the 26th of April, 18 16, on the Collection of the
Revenue in the Legal Currency of the Country.

viii Contents Page
The Revolution in Greece  60
A Speech delivered in the House of Representatives of the United
States, on the 19th of January, 1824.
The Tariff  94
A Speech delivered in the House of Representatives of the United
States, on the ist and 2d of April, 1824.
The Judiciary  150
Remarks made on the 4th of January, 1826, in the House of Repre
sentatives of the United States, on the Bill to amend the Judiciary
System.
The Panama Mission  178
A Speech delivered in the House of Representatives of the United
States, on the 14th of April, 1826.
Revolutionary Officers  218
A Speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 25th
of April, 1828, on the Bill for the Relief of the Surviving Officers
of the Revolution.
Second Speech on the Tariff  228
Delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 9th of May,
1828, on the Tariff Bill.
First Speech on Foot's Resolution  248
Delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 20th of Janu
ary, 1830.

List of Illustrations
VOLUME FIVE
Daniel Webster  Frontispiece
From the bust by Thomas Ball
Webster's Home while at Portsmouth, N. H. . Engraved Title
From a pencil-drawing
Henry Clay  Page 94
From the painting by Edward Dalton Marchant, Department
of State, Washington
James Monroe  " 200
From the painting by Gilbert Stuart, in the possession of
Hon. T. Jefferson Coolidge
Thomas H. Benton  "248
After a photograph from life, in the possession of
Mr. Robert Coster

Speeches in the Convention to
Amend the Constitution of
the State of Massachusetts

VOL. V. — I

Qualifications for Office'

In consequence of the separation of what is now the State of Maine
from Massachusetts, in the year 1820, it became necessary to make
some change in the constitution of the Commonwealth. The opportuni
ty was thought a favorable one for a general revision of that instrument,
which had undergone no amendment since its adoption in 1780. Dele
gates were accordingly chosen by the people to meet in convention for
this purpose, the several towns and districts in the Commonwealth (there
were then no cities) being allowed as many delegates as they were
respectively entitled to send members to the House of Representatives
of the State. Mr. Webster was among the delegates chosen by the
town of Boston, and took an active and distinguished part in the busi
ness of the convention, both in committee-room and in debate.
As soon as the body was organized by the choice of its officers, the
chief provisions of the existing constitution were referred to select com
mittees, instructed to consider and report whether any, and if any, what
amendments were desirable to be made in them. The subject of the
official oaths and subscriptions required by the sixth chapter of the sec
ond part of the constitution was referred to a committee for this purpose,
of which Mr. Webster was chairman. A report was made by this com
mittee, recommending that, in lieu of all oaths and subscriptions then re
quired, a simple oath of allegiance to the Commonwealth, together with
the oath of office, should be taken by all persons chosen or appointed to
office. The most important feature of these proposed changes was. that
a profession of belief in the Christian religion was no longer required as
a qualification for office.
The resolutions reported by this committee became the subject of a
discussion, in the course of which, on the 4th of December, 1820, Mr.
Webster made the following remarks : —
• Remarks, made on tne 4th of December, 1820, in the Convention of Delegates
chosen to revise the Constitution of Massachnsetts, upon the Resolution relating
to Oaths of Office.

4 Constitution of Massachusetts
It is obvious that the principal alteration proposed by the first
resolution is the omission of the declaration of beKef in the
Christian religion as a qualification for office, in the cases of
the governor, lieutenant-governor, councillors, and members of
the legislature. I shall content myself on this occasion with
stating, shortly and generally, the sentiments of the select com
mittee, as I understand them, on the subject of this resolution.
Two questions naturally present themselves. In the first
place, Have the people a right, if in their judgment the security
of their government and its due administration demand it, to
require a declaration of belief in the Christian religion as a qual
ification or condition of office? On this question, a majority of
the committee held a decided opinion. They thought the peo
ple had such a right. By the fundamental principle of popular
and elective governments, ail office is in the free gift of the peo
ple. They may grant or they may withhold it at pleasure ;
and if it be for them, and them only, to decide whether they will
grant office, it is for them to decide, also, on what terms and what
conditions they will grant it. Nothing is more unfounded than
the notion that any man has a right to an office. This must
depend on the choice of others, and consequently upon the opin
ions of others, in relation to his fitness and qualification for
office. No man can be said to have a right to that which others
may withhold from him at pleasure. There are certain rights,
no doubt, which the whole people, or the government as repre
senting the whole people, owe to each individual in return for
that obedience and personal service, and those proportionate
contributions to the public burdens, which each individual owes
to the government. These rights are stated with sufficient ac
curacy, in the tenth article of the Bill of Rights, in this consti
tution. " Each individual in society has a right to be protected
by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according
to the standing laws." Here is no right of office enumerated; no
right of governing others, or of bearing rule in the State. Ail
bestowment of office remaining in the discretion of the people,
they have of course a right to regulate it by any rules which
they may deem expedient. Hence the people, by their consti
tution, prescribe certain qualifications for office, respecting age,
property, residence, and taxation. But if office, merely as such,
were a right which each individual under the social compact

Qualifications for Office 5
was entitled to claim, all these qualifications would be excluded.
Acknowledged rights are not subject, and ought not to be sub
ject, to any such limitation. The right of being protected in
life, liberty, and estate is due to all, and cannot be justly denied
to any, whatever be their age, property, or residence in the State.
These qualifications, then, can only be made requisite as condi
tions for office, on the ground that office is not what any man
can demand as matter of right, but rests in the confidence and
good-will of those who are to bestow it. In short, it seems to
me too plain to be questioned, that the right of office is a mat
ter of discretion, and option, and can never be claimed by any
man on the ground of obligation. It would seem to follow,
then, that those who confer office may annex any such condi
tions to it as they think proper. If they prefer one man to
another, they may act on that preference. If they regard certain
personal qualifications, they may act accordingly, and ground
of complaint is given to nobody. Between two candidates, oth
erwise equally qualified, the people at an election may decide in
favor of one because he is a Christian, and against the other
because he is not. They may repeat this preference at the next
election, on the same ground, and may continue it from year to
yeai. Now, if the people may, without injustice, act upon this pref
erence, and from a sole regard to this qualification, and refuse
in any instance to depart from it, they have an equaUy clear
right to prescribe this quaUfication beforehand, as a rule for their
future government. If they may do it, they may agree to do it
If they deem it necessary, they may so say, beforehand. If the
pubUc wiU may require this qualification at every election as it
occurs, the pubUc wiU may declare itself beforehand, and make
such quaUfication a standing requisite. That cannot be an un
just rule, the compliance with which, in every case, would be
right. This quaUfication has nothing to do with any man's
conscience. If he disUke the condition, he may decUne the office,
in like manner as if he disUke the salary, the rank, or any thing
else which the law attaches to it.
But however clear the right may be (and I can hardly sup
pose any gentleman wUl dispute it), the expediency of retaining
the declaration is a more difficult question. It is said not to be
necessary, because in this Commonwealth ninety-nine out of

6 Constitution of Massachusetts
every hundred of the inhabitants profess to believe in the Chris
tian religion. It is sufficiently certain, therefore, that persons of
this description, and none others, will ordinarily be chosen to
places of pubUc trust. There is as much security, it is said, on
this subject, as the necessity of the case requires. And as there
is a sort of opprobrium incident to this quaUfication, — a mark
ing out, for observation and censorious remark, of a single indi
vidual, or a very few individuals, w^ho may not be able to make
the declaration, — it is an act, if not of injustice, yet of unkind
ness, and of unnecessEiry rigor, to caU on such individuals to
make the declaration, and to exclude them from office if they
refuse to do so.
There is also another class of objections, which have been
stated. It has been said, that there are many very devout and
serious persons, persons who esteem the Christian reUgion to be
above all price, to whom, nevertheless, the terms of this declara
tion seem somewhat too strong and intense. They seem, to
these persons, to require the declaration of that faith which is
deemed essential to personal salvation ; and therefore not at aU
fit to be adopted as a declaration of belief in Christianity, in a
more popular and general sense. It certainly appears to me,
that this is a mistaken interpretation of the terms ; that they
imply only a general assent to the truth of the Christian revela
tion, and, at most, to the supernatural occurrences which estab
Ush its authenticity. There may, however, and there appears to
be, conscience in this objection ; and all conscience ought to be
respected. I was not aware, before I attended the discussions
in the committee, of the extent to which this objection pre
vailed. There is one other consideration to which I will aUude, al
though it was not urged in committee. It is this. This qualifi
cation is made applicable only to the executive and the members
of the legislature. It would not be easy, perhaps, to say why it
should not be extended to the judiciary, if it were thought neces
sary for any office. There can be no office in which the sense
of religious responsibiUty is more necessary than in that of a
judge ; especially of those judges who pass, in the last resort, on
the Uves, Uberty, and property of every man. There may be
among legislators strong passions and bad passions. There
may be party heats and personal bitterness. But legislation is

Qualifications for Office 7
in its nature general : laws usually affect the whole society ; and
if mischievous or unjust, the whole society is alarmed, and seeks
their repeal. The judiciary power, on the other hand, acts di
rectly on individuals. The injured may suffer, without sympa
thy or the hope of redress. The last hope of the innocent, under
accusation and in distress, is in the integrity of his judges. If
this faU, aU faUs ; and there is no remedy, on this side the bar
of Heaven. Of aU places, therefore, there is none which so
imperatively demands that he who occupies it should be under
the fear of God, and above aU other fear, as the situation of a
judge. For these reasons, perhaps, it might be thought that the
constitution has not gone far enough, if the provisions already
in it were deemed necessary to the pubUc security.
I beUeve I have stated the substance of the reasons which
appeared to have weight with the committee. For my own
part, finding this declaration in the constitution, and hearing of
no practical evil resulting from it, I should have been willing to
retain it, unless considerable objection had been expressed to it.
If others were satisfied with it, I should be. I do not consider
it, however, essential to retain it, as there is another part of the
constitution which recognizes, in the fullest manner, the benefits
which civil society derives from those Christian institutions
which cherish piety, moraUty, and reUgion. I am clearly of
opinion, that we should not strike out of the constitution all
recogiution of the Christian reUgion. I am desirous, in so sol
emn a transaction as the estabUshment of a constitution, that
we should keep in it an expression of our respect and attachment
to Christianity ; — not, indeed, to any of its pecuUar forms, but
to ita general principles.

Basis of the Senate*

I KNOW not, Sir, whether it be probable that any opinions or
votes of mine are ever Ukely to be of more permanent impor
tance, than those which I may give in the discharge of my
duties in this body. And of the questions which may arise
here, I anticipate no one of greater consequence than the pres
ent. I ask leave, therefore, to submit a few remarks to the con
sideration of the committee.
The subject before us, is the manner of constituting the legis
lative department of government. We have already decided,
that the legislative power shaU exist as it has heretofore existed,
in two separate and distinct branches, a Senate and a House of
Representatives. We propose also, at least I have heard no
intimation of a contrary opinion, that these branches shall, in
form, possess a negative on each other. I presume I may also
take it for granted, that the members of both these houses are
to be chosen annuaUy. The immediate question now under
discussion is, In what manner shall the senators be elected?
They are to be chosen in districts ; but shall they be chosen in
proportion to the number of inhabitants in each distiict, or in
proportion to the taxable property of each district, or, in other
words, in proportion to the part which each district bears in the
pubUc burdens of the State. The latter is the existing provision
of the constitution ; and to this I give my support.
The resolution of the honorable member from Roxbury f
proposes to divide the State into certain legislative districts, and
• Remarks made on the 15th of December, 1820, in the Conyention, upon the
Resolution to divide the Commonwealth into Districts for the Choice of Senators
according to Population.
f General Dearborn.

Basis of the Senate 9
to choose a given number of senators, and a given number of
representatives, in each district, in proportion to population.
This I understand. It is a simple and plain system. The hon
orable member from Pittsfield* and the honorable member from
Worcester! support the first part of this proposition, that is to
say, that part which provides for the choice of senators accord
ing to population, without explaining entirely their views as to
the latter part, relative to the choice of representatives. They
insist that the questions are distinct, and capable of a separate
consideration and decision. I confess myself, Sir, unable to
view the subject in that Ught. It seems to me, there is an
essential propriety in considering the questions together ; and
in forming our opinions of them, as parts respectively of one
legislative system. The legislature is one great machine of gov
ernment, not two machines. The two houses are its parts, and
its utiUty wiU, as it seems to me, depend not merely on the
materials of these parts, or their separate construction, but on
their accommodation, also, and adaptation to each other. Their
balanced and regulated movement, when united, is that which
is expected to insure safety to the State ; and who can give any
opinion on this, without first seeing the constiuction of both,
and considering how they are formed and arranged with respect
to their mutual relation ? I cannot imagine, therefore, how the
member fi-om Worcester should think it uncandid to inquire of
him, since he supports this mode of choosing senators, what
mode he proposes for the choice of representatives.
It has been said that the constitution, as it now stands, gives
more than an equal and proper number of senators to the county
of Suffolk. I hope I may be thought to contend for the general
principle, without being influenced by any regard to its local ap
pUcation. I do not inquire whether the senators whom this
principle brings into the government wUl come from the county
of Suffolk, from the valley of the Housatonic, or the extiemity
of Cape Cod. I wish to look only to the principle ; and as I
beUeve that to be sound and salutary, I shaU give my vote in
favor of maintaining it.
In my opiruon, Sir, there are two questions before the com
mittee. The first is, Shall the legislative department be con-
• Mr. Childs. t Mr. Lincoln.

10 Constitution of Massachusetts
stiucted with any other check than such as arises simply from
dividing the members of this department into two houses ? The
second is, If such other and further check ought to exist, in what
manner shaU it be created ?
" If the two houses are to be chosen in the manner proposed by
the resolutions of the member from Roxbury, there is obviously
no other check or contiol than a division into separate cham
bers. The members of both houses are to be chosen at the
eame time, by the same electors, in the same districts, and for
the same term of office. They will of course aU be actuated by
the same feeUngs and interests. Whatever motives may at the
moment exist to elect particular members of one house, wiU op
erate equaUy on the choice of the members of the other. There
is so Utile of real utiUty in this mode, that, if nothing more be
done, it would be more expedient to choose aU the members of
the legislature, without distinction, simply as members of the
legislature, and to make the division into two houses, either by
lot or otherwise, after these members thus chosen should have
come up to the capital.
I understand the reason of checks and balances, in the legis
lative power, to arise from the truth, that, in representative gov
ernments, that department is the leading and predominating
power ; and if its wiU may be at any time suddenly and hastily
expressed, there is great danger that it may overthrow aU other
powers. Legislative bodies naturaUy feel stiong, because they
are numerous, and because they consider themselves as the im
mediate representatives of the people. They depend on pub
Uc opinion to sustain their measures, and they undoubtedly pos
sess great means of influencing pubUc opinion. With aU the
guards which can be raised by constitutional provisions, we are
not likely to be too weU secured against cases of improper, or
hasty, or intemperate legislation. It may be observed, also,
that the executive power, so uniformly the object of jealousy to
republics, has in the States of this Union been deprived of the
greater part both of its importance and its splendor, by the es-
_J;abUshment of the general government. While the States pos
sessed the power of making war and peace, and maintained
miUtary forces by their own authority, the power of the State
executives was very considerable and respectable. It might
then even be an object, in some cases, of a just and warranta-

Basis of the Senate 1 1
ble jealousy. But a great cha^jge has been wrought. The care
of foreign relations, the maintenance of armies and navies, and
their command and contiol, have devolved on another govern
ment. Even the power of appointment, so exclusively, one
would think, an executive power, is, in very many of the States,
held or contioUed by the legislature ; that department either
making the principal appointments itself, or else surrounding
the chief executive magistiate with a councU of its own elec
tion, possessing a negative upon his nominations.
Nor has it been found easy, nor in all cases possible, to pre
serve the judicial department from the progress of legislative
encroachment. Indeed, in some of the States, aU judges are ap
pointed by the legislature ; in others, although appointed by the
executive, they are removable at the pleasure of the legislature.
In aU, the provision for their maintenance is necessarily to be
made by the legislature. As if Montesquieu had never demon
strated the necessity of separating the departments of govern
ments ; as if Mr. Adams had not done the same thing, with
equal abiUty, and more clearness, in his Defence of the Ameri
can Constitutions; as if the sentiments of Mr. HamUton and
Mr. Madison were already forgotten ; we see, aU around us, a
tendency to extend the legislative power over the proper sphere
of the other departments. And as the legislature, from the very
nature of things, is the most powerful department, it becomes
necessary to provide, in the mode of forming it, some check
which sheiU insure deUberation and caution in its measures. If
all legislative power rested in one house, it is very problematical
whether any proper independence could be given, either to the
executive or the judiciary. Experience does not speak encour
agingly on that point. If we look through the several constitu
tions of the States, we shaU perceive that genereiUy the depart
ments are most distinct and independent where the legislature
is composed of two houses, with equal authority, and mutual
checks. If aU legislative power be in one popular body, aU other
power, sooner or later, wiU be there also.
I wish, now, Sir, to correct a most important mistake in the
manner in which this question has been stated. It has been
said, that we propose to give to property, merely as such, a con
trol over the people, numericaUy considered. But this I take
not to be at aU the true nature of the proposition. The Senate

12 Constitution of Massachusetts
is not to be a check on the people, but on the House of Repre
sentatives. It is the case of an authority, given to one agent, to
check or contiol the acts of another. The people, having con
ferred on the House of Representatives powers which are great,
and, from their nature, liable to abuse, require, for their own se
curity, another house, which shaU possess an effectual negative
on the first. This does not Umit the power of the people ; but
only the authority of their agents. It is not a restiaint on their
rights, but a restiaint on that power which they have delegated.
It Umits the authority of agents in making laws to bind their
principals. And if it be wise to give one agent the power of
checking or contioUing another, it is equaUy wise, most mani
festly, that there should be some difference of character, senti
ment, feeUng, or origin in that agent who is to possess this
control. Otherwise, it is not at aU probable that the contiol
wiU ever be exercised. To require the consent of two agents
to the vaUdity of an act, and yet to appoint agents so similar,
in all respects, as to create a moral certainty that what one does
the other wiU do also, would be inconsistent, and nugatory.
There can be no effectual contiol, without some difference of
origin, or character, or interest, or feeUng, or sentiment. And
the great question in this countiy has been, where to find, or
how to create, this difference, in governments entirely elective
and popular.
Various modes have been attempted in various States. In
some, a difference of qualification has been required in the per
sons to be elected. This obviously produces Uttle or no effect.
AU property quaUfication, even the highest, is so low, as to pro
duce no exclusion, to any extent, in any of the States. A dif
ference of age in the persons elected is sometimes required;
but this is found to be equaUy unimportant. Neither has it hap
pened, that any consideration of the relative rank of the mem
bers of the two houses has had much effect on the character of
their constituent members. Both in the State governments, and
in the United States government, we daily see persons elected
into the House of Representatives who have been members of
the Senate. PubUc opinion does not attach so much weight
and importance to the distinction, as to lead individuals greatly
to regard it. In some of the States, a different sort of qualifi
cation in the electors is required for the two houses ; and this i»

Basis of the Senate 13

probably the most proper and efficient check. But such has not
been the provision in this Commonwealth, and there are stiong
objections to intioducing it. In other cases, again, there is a
double election for senators ; electors being first chosen, who elect
senators. Such is the case in Maryland, where the senators are
elected for five years, by electors appointed in equal numbers by
the counties ; a mode of election not unlike that of choosing rep
resentatives in the British ParUament for the boroughs of Scot
land. In this State, the quaUfication of the voters is the same
for the two houses, and there is no essential difference in that of
the persons chosen. But, in apportioning the Senate to the dif
ferent distiicts of the State, the present constitution assigns to
each distiict a number proportioned to its pubUc taxes. Whether
this be the best mode of producing a difference in the constiuc
tion of the two houses, is not now the question ; but the ques
tion is, whether this be better than no mode.
The gentleman from Roxbury caUed for authority on this sub
ject. He asked, what writer of reputation had approved the
principle for which we contend. I should hope, Sir, that, even
if this caU could not be answered, it would not necessarUy fol
low that the principle should be expunged. Governments are,
instituted for practical benefit, not for subjects of speculative^
reasoning merely. The best authority for the support of a
particular principle or provision in government is experience;
and of aU experience, our own, if it have been long enough to
give the principle a fair tiial, should be most decisive. This
provision has existed for forty years, and whUe so many gentle
men contend that it is wrong in theory, no one has shown that
it has been either injurious or inconvenient in practice. No one
pretends that it has caused a bad law to be enacted, or a good
one to be rejected. To caU on us, then, to stiike out this pro
vision, because we should be able to find no authority for it in
any book on government, would seem to be like requiring a
mechanic to abandon the use of an implement, which had
always answered all the purposes designed by it, because he
could find no model of it in the patent-office.
But, Sir, I take the principle to be weU estabUshed, by writers
of the greatest authority. In the first place, those who have
tieated of natural law have maintained, as a principle of that
law, that, as far as the object of society is the protection of

14 Constitution of Massachusetts
something in which the members possess unequal shaies, it is
just that the weight of each person in the common councils
should bear a relation and proportion to his interest. Such is
the sentiment of Grotius, and he refers, in support of it, to sev
eral institutions among the ancient states.
Those authors who have written more particularly on the sub
ject of poUtical institutions have, many of them, maintained
simUar sentiments. Not, indeed, that every man's power should
be in exact proportion to his property, but that, in a general
sense, and in a general form, property, as such, should have its
' weight and influence in poUtical arrangement. Montesquieu
speaks with approbation of the early Roman regulation, made
by Servius TuUius, by which the people were distributed into
classes, according to their property, and the pubUc burdens ap
portioned to each individual according to the degree of powei
which he possessed in the government. By this regulation,
he observes, some bore with the greatness of their tax because
of their proportionable participation in power and credit ; others
consoled themselves for the smaUness of their power and credit
( by the smaUness of their tax. One of the most ingenious of
poUtical writers is Mr. Harrington, an author not now read so
much as he deserves. It is his leading object, in his Oceana, to
prove, that power naturally and necessarily foUows property.
He maintains that a government founded on property is legiti
mately founded ; and that a government founded on the disre
gard of property is founded in injustice, and can only be main
tained by mUitary force. " K one man," says he, " be sole land
lord, like the Grand Seignior, his empire is absolute. If a few
possess the land, this makes the Gothic or feudal constitution.
If the whole people be landlords, then is it a commonwealth."
" It is stiange," says an ingenious person in the last century,
"that Harrington should be the first man to find out so evi
dent and demonstiable a tiuth as that of property being the
true basis and measure of power." * In truth, he was not the
first. The idea is as old as political science itself. It may be
found in Aristotie, Lord Bacon, Sir Walter Raleigh, and other
writers. Harrington seems, however, to be the first writer who
has Ulustiated and expanded the principle, and given to it the
• Spence's Anecdotes of Books and Men, p. 75.

Basis of the Senate 15
effect and prominence which justiy belong to it. To this senti
ment, Sir, I entirely agree. It seems to me to be plain, that, in
the absence of miUtary force, poUtical power naturaUy and
necessarily goes into the hands which hold the property. In my
judgment, therefore, a repubUcan form of government rests, not
more on poUtical constitutions, than on those laws which regu
late the descent and tiansmission' of property.
If the nature of our institutions be to found government on
property, and that it should look to those who hold property for
its protection, it is entirely just that property should have its due
weight and consideration in poUtical arrangements. Life and
personal Uberty axe no doubt to be protected by law ; but prop
erty is also to be protected by law, and is the fund out of which
the means for protecting life and Uberty are usuaUy furnished.
We have no experience that teaches us that any other rights are
safe where property is not safe. Confiscation and plunder are
generaUy, in revolutionary commotions, not far before banish
ment, imprisonment, and death. It would be monstious to give
even the name of government to any association in which the
rights of property should not be completely secured. The disas
tious revolutions which the world has witnessed, those poUtical
thunder-storms and earthquakes which have shaken the pUlars
of society to their very deepest foundations, have been revolu
tions against property. Since the honorable member from
Quincy* has aUuded on this occasion to the history of the an
cient states, it would be presumption in me to dweU upon it
It may be truly said, however, I think, that Rome herself is
an example of the mischievous influence of the popular power
when disconnected with property and in a corrupt age. It is
true the arm of Caesar prostiated her Uberty ; but Caesar found
his support within her very walls. Those who were proffigate
and necessitous, and factious and desperate, and capable, there
fore, of being influenced by bribes and largesses, which were
distributed with the utmost prodigaUty, outnumbered and out
voted, in the tribes and centinries, the substantial, sober, pru
dent, and faithful citizens. Property was in the hands of one
description of men, and power in those of another; and the
balance of the constitution was destioyed. Let it never be
* President Adams.

1 6 Constitution of Massachusetts
forgotten that it was the popular magistiates, elevated to office
where the bad outnumbered the good, — where those who had
not a stake in the commonwealth, by clamor and noise and num
bers, drowned the voice of those who had, — that laid the neck
of Rome at the feet of her conqueror. When Caesar, manifest
ing a disposition to march his army against the capital, ap
proached that Uttle stieam which has become so memorable
from its association with his history, a decree was proposed in
the Senate declaring him a public enemy if he did not dis
band his tioops. To this decree the popular tribunes, the
sworn protectors of the people, interposed their negative ; and
thus opened the high road to Rome, and the gates of the city
herself, to the approach of her conqueror.
The English Revolution of 1688 was a revolution in favor of
property, as weU as of other rights. It was brought about by
the men of property for their security ; and our own immortal
Revolution was undertaken, not to shake or plunder property,
but to protect it. The acts of which the country complained
were such as violated rights of property. An immense majority
of aU those who had an interest in the soU were in favor of the
Revolution ; and they carried it through, looking to its results
tor the security of their possessions. It was the property of the
frugal yeomanry of New England, hard earned, but freely given,
that enabled her to act her proper part and perform her fuU duty
in achieving the independence of the countiy.
I would not be thought, Mr. Chairman, to be among those
who underrate the value of miUtary service. My heart beats, I
trust, as responsive as any one's, to a soldier's claim for honor
and renown. It has ever been my opinion, however, that whUe
celebrating the miUtary achievements of our countiymen in the
Revolutionary contest, we have not always done equal justice to
the merits and the sufferings of those who sustained, on their
property, and on their means of subsistence, the great burden of
the war. Any one, who has had occasion to be acquainted with
the records of the New England towns, knows weU how to esti
mate those merits and those sufferings. Nobler records of patii
otism exist nowhere. Nowhere can there be found higher proofs
of a spirit that was ready to hazard aU, to pledge aU, to sacrifice
aU, in the cause of the countiy. Instances were not infrequent,
in which smaU freeholders parted with their last hoof, and the

Basis of the Senate 17
last measure of corn from their granaries, to supply provisions for
the tioops, and hire service for the ranks. The voice of Otis
and of Adams in FaneuU HaU found its fuU and true echo in the
Uttie councUs of the interior towns ; and if within the Continen
tal Congress patriotism shone more conspicuously, it did not
there exist more tiuly, nor burn more ferventiy ; it did not render
the day more anxious, or the night more sleepless ; it sent up no
more ardent prayer to God, for succor ; and it put forth in no
greater degree the fulness of its effort, and the energy of its
whole soul and spirit, in the common cause, than it did in the
smaU assembUes of the towns. I cannot, therefore. Sir, agree
that it is in favor of society, or in favor of the people, to con
stitute government with an entire disregard to those who bear
the pubUc burdens in times of great exigency. This question
has been argued, as if it were proposed only to give an advan
tage to a few rich men. I do not so understand it. I consider
it as giving property, generaUy, a representation in the Senate,
both because it is just that it should have such representation,
and because it is a convenient mode of providing that check
which the constitution of the legislature requires. I do not
say that such check might not be found in some other pro
vision ; but this is the provision already estabUshed, and it is,
in my opinion, a just and proper one.
I wiU beg leave to ask. Sir, whether property may not be said
to deserve this portion of respect and power in the govern
ment ? It pays, at this moment, I think, five sixths of all the
pubUc taxes ; one sixth only being raised on persons. Not
only, Sir, do these taxes support those burdens which all gov
ernments require, but we have, in New England, from early
times held property to be subject to another great public use ;
I mean the support of schools. Sir, property, and the power
which the law exercises over it for the purpose of instiuction,
are the basis of the system. It is entitled to the respect and
protection of government, because, in a very vital respect, it
aids and sustains government. The honorable member from
Worcester, in contending for the admission of the mere popu
lar principle in aU branches of the government, told us, that
our system rested on the intelUgence of the community. He
told us tiuly. But aUow me. Sir, to ask the honorable gen
tleman, what, but property, supplies the means of that inteUi-

1 8 Constitution of Massachusetts
gence? What Uving fountain feeds this ever-flowing, ever-
refreshing, ever-fertUizing stieam of pubUc instruction and gen
eral intelUgence ? If we take away from the towns the power
of assessing taxes on property, will the school-houses remain
open? If we deny to the poor the benefit which they now
derive from the property of the rich, wiU their chUdren remain on
their forms, or will they not, rather, be in the stieets, in idleness
and in vice ?
I might ask again. Sir, how is it with reUgious instruction ?
Do not the towns and parishes raise money by vote of the ma
jority, assessed on property, for the maintenance of reUgious
worship ? Are not the poor as weU as the rich benefited by the
means of attending on public worship, and do they not equaUy
with the rich possess a voice and vote in the choice of the
minister, and in aU other parish concerns ? Does any man. Sir,
wish to try the experiment of stiUdng out of the constitution
the regard which it has hitherto maintained for property, and of
foregoing also the extiaordinary benefit which society among us
for near two centuries has derived from laying the burden of re
Ugious and Uterary instiuction of all classes upon property?
Does any man wish to see those only worshipping God who are
able to buUd churches and maintain ministers for themselves,
and those chUdren only educated whose parents possess the
means of educating them ? Sir, it is as unwise as it is unjust
to make property an object of jealousy. Instead of being, in
any just sense, a popular course, such a course would be most
injurious and destiuctive to the best interests of the people.
The nature of our laws sufficiently secures us against any dan
gerous accumulations ; and, used and diffused as we have it, the
whole operation of property is in the highest degree useful, both
to the rich and to the poor. I rejoice. Sir, that every man in this
community may caU aU property his own, so far as he has oc
casion for it, to furnish for himself and his chUdren the blessings
of reUgious instruction and the elements of knowledge. This
heavenly and this earthly Ught he is entitled to by the funda
mental laws. It is every poor man's undoubted birthright, it is
the great blessing which this constitution has secured to him, it
is his solace in Ufe, and it may weU be his consolation in death,
that his countiy stands pledged, by the faith which it has pUght
ed to aU its citizens, to protect his children from ignorance, bar
barism, and vice.

Basis of the Senate 19
I wUl now proceed to ask, Sir, whether we have not seen, and
whether we do not at this moment see, the advantage and bene
fit of giving security to property, by this and aU other reason
able and just provisions. The constitution has stood on its
present basis forty years. Let me ask. What State has been
more distinguished for wise and wholesome legislation ? I
speak, Sir, without the partiality of a native, and also without
intending the compUment of a stianger; and I ask, What exam
ple have we had of better legislation ? No violent measures af
fecting property have been attempted. Stop laws, suspension
laws, tender laws, aU the tiibe of these arbitrary and tyrannical
interferences between creditor and debtor, which, wheresoever
practised, generaUy end in the ruin of both, are stiangers to our
statute-book. An upright and intelUgent judiciary has come in
aid of wholesome legislation; and general secmrity for pubUc
and private rights has been the result. I do not say that this is
pecuUar, I do not say that others have not done as weU. It is
enough that, in these respects, we shaU be satisfied that we are
not behind our neighbors. No doubt. Sir, there are benefits
of every kind, and of great value, in an organization of gov
ernment, both in legislative and judicial administiation, which
weU secures the rights of property ; and we should find it so, by
unfortunate experience, should that character be lost. There
are milUons of personal property now in this Commonwealth
which are easUy tiansferable, and would be instantly tiansferred
elsewhere, if any doubt existed of its entire security. I do not
know how much of this stabUity of government, and of the
general respect for it, may be fairly imputed to this particular
mode of organizing the Senate. It has, no doubt, had some
effect. It indicates a respect for the rights of property, and may
have operated on opinion as weU as upon measures. Now to
strike out and obUterate it, as it seems to me, would be in a
high degree unwise and improper. 
As to the right of apportioning senators upon this principle, I
do not understand how there can be a question about it. All
government is a modification of general principles and general
truths, with a view to practical utiUty. Personal Uberty, for in
stance, is a clear right, and is to be provided for ; but it is not a
clearer right than the right of property, though it may be more
important. It is, therefore, entitled to protection. But property

20 Constitution of Massachusetts
is also to be protected ; and when it is remembered how great a
portion of the people of this State possess property, I cannot
understand how its protection or its influence is hostUe to their
rights and privileges. For these reasons. Sir, I am in favor of
maintaining that check, in the constitution of the legislature,
which has so long existed there.
I understand the gentleman from Worcester * to be in favor
of a check, but it seems to me he would place it in the wrong
house. Besides, the sort of check he proposes appears to me
to be of a novel nature, as a balance in government. He pro
poses to choose the senators according to the number of inhab
itants ; and to choose representatives, not according to that
number, but in proportions greatly unequal in the town corpo
rations. It has been stated to result from computation, and I do
not understand it to be denied, that, on his system, a majority
of the representatives wiU be chosen by towns not containing
one third part of the whole population of the State. I would
beg to ask. Sir, on what principle this can stand ; especiaUy in
the judgment of those who regard population as the only just
basis of representation. But, Sir, I have a preUminary objec
tion to this system ; which is, that it reverses aU our common
notions, and constitutes the popular house upon anti-popular
principles. We are to have a popular Senate of thirty-six mem
bers, and we are to place the check of the system in a House of
Representatives of two hundred and fifty members ! AU money
bUls are to originate in the House, yet the House is not to be
the popular branch. It is to exceed the Senate, seven or eight
to one, in point of numbers, yet the Senate is to be chosen on
the popular principle, and the House on some other principle.
It is necessary here. Sir, to consider the manner of electing
representatives in this Commonwealth, as heretofore practised,
the necessity which exists of reducing the present number of
representatives, and the propositions which have been submitted
for that purpose. Representation by towns or townships (as
they might have been originaUy more properly called) is peculiar
to New England. It has existed, however, since the first settle
ment of the countiy. These local districts are so smaU, and of
Buch unequal population, that if every town is to have one rep-
• Mr. Lincoln.

Basis of the Senate 21
resentative, and larger towns as many more as their population,
compared with the smaUest town, would numerically entitle
them to, a very numerous body must be the consequence, in any
large State. Five hundred members, I understand, may now be
constitutionally elected to the House of Representatives; the
very statement of which number shows the necessity of reduc
tion. I agree. Sir, that this is a very difficult subject. Here are
three hundred towns aU possessing the right of representation ;
and representation by towns is an ancient habit of the people.
For one, I am disposed to preserve this mode, so far as may be
practicable. There is always an advantage in making the revis
ions of the fundamental law, which circumstances may render
necessary, in a manner which does no violence to ancient habits
and established rules. I prefer, therefore, a representation by
towns, even though it should necessarUy be somewhat numer
ous, to a division of the State into new distiicts, the parts ol
which might have Uttie natural connection or little actual inter
com se with one another. But I ground my opinion in this re
spect on fitness and expediency, and the sentiments of the
people ; not on absolute right. The town corporations, simply
as such, cannot be said to have any right to representation ; ex
cept so far as the constitution creates such right. And this I
apprehend to be the faUacy of the argument of the honorable
member firom Worcester. He contends, that the smaUest town
has a right to its representative. This is tiue ; but the largest
town (Boston) has a right also to fifty. These rights are pre
cisely equal. They stand on the same ground, that is, on the
provisions of the existing constitution. The honorable member
thinks it quite just to reduce the right of the large town from
fifty to ten, and yet that there is no power to affect the right of
the smaU town, either by uniting it with another smaU town
for the choice of a representative, or otherwise. I do not assent
to that opinion. If it be right to take away half or three fourths
of the representation of the large towns, it cannot be right to
leave that of the smaU towns undiminished. The report of the
committee proposes that these smaU towns shaU elect a member
every other year, half of them sending one year, and half the
next; or else that two smaU towns shaU unite and send one
member every year. There is something apparently irregulai
and anomalous in sending a member every other year ; yet, per-

22 Constitution of Massachusetts
haps, it is no great departure from former habits , because these
smaU towns, being by the present constitution compeUed to pay
their own members, have not ordinarUy sent them oftener, on
the average, than once in two years.
The honorable member from Worcester founds his argument
on the right of town corporations, as such, to be represented in
the legislature. If he only mean that right which the constitu
tion at present secures, his observation is true, while the consti
tution remains unaltered. But if he intend to say that such
right exists prior to the constitution, and independent of it, I
ask. Whence is it derived? Representation of the people has
heretofore been by towns, because such a mode has been thought
convenient. StUl it has been the representation of the people.
It is no corporate right, to partake in the sovereign power and
form part of the legislature. To estabUsh this right, as a cor
porate right, the gentleman has enumerated the duties of the
town corporation ; such as the maintenance of pubUc worship,
pubUc schools, and pubUc highways ; and insists that the per
formance of these duties gives the towm a right to a representa
tive in the legislature. But I would ask. Sir, what possible
ground there is for this argument. The bm-den of these duties
faUs not on any corporate funds belonging to the towns, but on
the people, under assessments made on them individuaUy, in
their town meetings. As distinct from their individual inhabit
ants, the towns have no interest in these affairs. These duties
are imposed by general laws ; they are to be performed by the
people, and if the people are represented in the making of these
laws, the object is answered, whether they should be represented
in one mode or another.
But, farther, Sir, are these municipal duties rendered to the
State, or are they not rather performed by the people of the
towns for their own benefit ? The general tieasury derives no
suppUes from aU these contributions. If the towns maintain
reUgious instiuction, it is for the benefit of their own inhabitants ;
if they support schools, it is for the education of the chUdren of
their inhabitants ; and if they maintain roads and bridges, it is
also for their own convenience. And therefore, Sir, although I
repeat that for reasons of expediency I am in favor of maintain
ing town representation, as far as it can be done with a proper
regard to equaUty of representation, I entirely disagree to the

Basis of the Senate 23
notion, that every town has a right, which an alteration of the
constitution cannot divest, if the general good require such alter
ation, to have a representative in the legislature.
The honorable member has declared that we are about to
disfranchise corporations, and destroy chartered rights. He pro
nounces this system of representation an outiage, and declares
that we are forging chains and fetters for the people of Massa
chusetts. " Chains and fetters ! " This convention of delegates,
chosen by the people within this month, and going back to the
people, divested of all power, within another month, yet occupy
ing their span of time here, in forging chains and fetters for
themselves and their constituents ! " Chains and fetters ! " A
popular assembly of four hundred men combining to fabricate
these manacles for the people, and nobody but the honora
ble member from Worcester with sagacity enough to detect
the horrible conspiracy, or honesty enough to disclose it!
" Chains and fetters ! " An assembly most variously composed,
— men of aU professions and aU parties, of different ages, hab
its, and associations, — aU freely and recently chosen by then-
towns and districts ; yet this assembly, in one short month, con
triving to fetter and enslave itself and its constituents! Sir,
there are some things too extiavagant for the ornament and
decoration of oratory ; some things too excessive, even for the
fictions of poetry ; and I am persuaded that a Uttle reflection
would satisfy the honorable member, that, when he speaks of
this assembly as committing outiages on the rights of the peo
ple, and as forging chains and fetters for their subjugation, he
does as great injustice to his own character as a correct and
manly debater, as he does to the motives and the inteUigence of
this body.
I do not doubt. Sir, that some inequaUty exists, in the mode of
representatives proposed by the committee. A precise and exact
equaUty is not attainable, in any mode. Look to the gentleman's
own proposition. By that, Essex, with twenty thousand inhab
itants more than Worcester, would have twenty representatives
less. Suffolk, which, according to numbers, would be entitled to
twenty, would have, if I mistake not, eight or nine only. What
ever else, Sir, this proposition may be a specimen of, it is hard
ly a specimen of equality. As to the House of Representatives,
mv view of the subject is this. Under the present constitution,

24 Constitution of Massachusetts
the towns have aU a right to send representatives to the legisla
ture, in a certain fixed proportion to their numbers. It has been
found that the full exercise of this right fills the House of Rep
resentatives with too numerous a body. What, then, is to be
done ? Why, Sir, the delegates of the towns are here assem
bled, to agree, mutuaUy, on some reasonable mode of reduction.
Now, Sir, it is not for one party to stand sternly on its right,
and demand aU the concession from another. As to right, aU
are equal. The right which HuU possesses to send one, is the
same as the right of Boston to send fifty. Mutual concession
and accommodation, therefore, can alone accompUsh the pur
pose of our meeting. If Boston consents, instead of fifty, to
send but twelve or fifteen, the smaU towns must consent, eithei
to be united, in the choice of their representatives, with other
smaU towns, or to send a representative less frequently than
every year ; or to have an option to do one or the other
of these, hereafter, as shaU be found most convenient. This
is what the report of the committee proposes, and, as far as
we have yet learned, a great majority of the delegates from
smaU towns approve the plan. I am wilUng, therefore, to vote
for this part of the report of the committee ; thinking it as
just and fair a representation, and as much reduced in point
of numbers, as can be reasonably hoped for, without giving up
entirely the system of representation by towns. It is to be con
sidered also, that, according to the report of the committee,
the pay of the members is to be out of the pubUc treasury.
Every body must see how this wUl operate on the large towns.
Boston, for example, with its twelve or fourteen members, wUl
pay for fifty. Be it so ; it is incident to its property, and not at
all an injustice, if proper weight be given to that property, and
proper provision be made for its security.
To recur, again, to the subject of the Senate. There is one
remark, made by gentlemen on the other side, of which I wish
to take notice. It is said, that, if the principle of representa
tion in the Senate by property be correct, it ought to be car
ried through ; whereas, it is Umited and restiained by a provis
ion that no district shall be entitled to more than six Senators.
But this is a prohibition on the making of great districts, gen
erally; not merely a Umitation of the effect of the property
principle. It prevents great distiicts from being made where

Basis of the Senate 25
the valuation is small, as well as where it is large. Were it not
for this, or some simUar prohibition, Worcester and Hampshire
might have been joined, under the present constitution, and have
sent, perhaps, ten or twelve Senators. The Umitation is a gen
eral one, intioduced for general purposes ; and if in a particular
instance it bears hard on any county, this should be regarded as
an evU incident to a good and salutary rule, and ought to be,
as I doubt not it wiU be, quietiy borne.
I forbear, Mr. Chairman, to take notice of many minor objec
tions to the report of the committee. The defence of that report,
especiaUy in its detaUs, properly belongs to other and abler
hands. My purpose in addressing you was, simply, to consider
the propriety of providing in one branch of the legislature a
real check upon the other. And as I look upon that princi
ple to be of the liighest practical importance, and as it has
seemed to me that the doctiines contended for would go to sub
vert it, I hope I may be pardoned for detaining the committee
80 long.

Independence of the Judiciary*

Regrets are vain for what is past ; yet I hardly know how it
has been thought to be a regular course of proceeding to go into
committee on this subject, before taking up the several proposi
tions which now await their final readings on the president's
table. The consequence is, that this question comes on by sur
prise. The chairman of the select committee is not present;
many of the most distinguished members of the convention are
personaUy so situated as not to be wUUng to take part in the
debate, and the first law officer of the government, a member of
the committee, happens at this moment to be in a place (the
chair of the committee of the whole) which deprives us of the
benefit of his observations. Under these circumstances, I had
hoped the committee would rise. It has, however, been deter
mined otherwise, and I must therefore beg their indulgence
whUe I make a few observations.
As the constitution now stands, aU judges are Uable to be re
moved from office by the governor, with the consent of the
councU, on the address of the two houses of the legislature. It
is not made necessary that the two houses should give any rea
sons for their address, or that the judge should have an opportu
nity to be heard. I look upon this as against common right, as
weU as repugnant to the general principles of the government.
The commission of the judge purports to be, on the face of it,
during good behavior. He has an interest in his office. To
give an authority to the legislature to deprive him of it, with
out trial or accusation, is manifestly to make the judges depend
ent on the legislature.
* Remarks made on the 30th of December, 1820, in the Convention, upon a
Resolution to make Judicial Officers removable bythe Governor and Council upon
the Address of two thirds (instead of a majority) of each Branch of the Legislature.

Independence of the Judiciary 27
The question is not what the legislature probably wUl do, but
what they may do. If the judges, in fact, hold their offices only
so long as the legislature see fit, then it is vain and Ulusory
to say that the judges are independent men, incapable of being
influenced by hope or by fear. The tenure of their office is not
independent. The general theory and principle of the govern
ment are broken in upon, by giving the legislature this power.
The departments of government are not equal, coordinate, and
independent, whUe one is thus at the mercy of the others. What
would be said of a proposition to authorize the governor or judges
to remove a senator or member of the House of Representatives
from office ? And yet, the general theory of the constitution is
to make the judges as independent as members of the legislature.
I know not whether a greater improvement has been made in
government than to separate the judiciary from the executive
and legislative branches, and to provide for the decision of pri
vate rights in a manner whoUy uninfluenced by reasons of state,
or considerations of party or of poUcy. It is the glory of the
British constitution to have led in the estabUshment of this most
important principle. It did not exist in England before the
Revolution of 1688, and its intioduction has seemed to give a
new character to the tribunals. It is not necessary to state the
evUs which had been experienced in that country from depend
ent and timeserving judges. In matters of mere property, in
causes of no poUtical or public bearing, they might perhaps be
safely trusted ; but in great questions concerning public Uberty
or the rights of the subject, they were, in too many cases, not fit
to be trusted at aU. Who would now quote Scroggs, or Saun
ders, or Jeffireys, on a question concerning the right of the habeas
corpus, or the right of suffrage, or the Uberty of the press, or any
other subject closely connected with poUtical freedom ? Yet on
aU these subjects the sentiments of the EngUsh judges since the
Revolution, of Somers, Holt, Ireby, Jekyl, and others Uke them,
are, in general, favorable to civil Uberty, and receive and deserve
great attention whenever referred to. Indeed, Massachusetts
herself knows, by her own history, what is to be expected from
dependent judges. Her own charter was declared forfeited,
without a hearing, in a court where such judges sat.
When Charles the Second, and his brother after him, at
tempted the destruction of chartered rights, both in the kingdom

28 Constitution of Massachusetts
and out of it, the mode was by judgments obtained in the
courts. It is weU known, that after the prosecution against the
city of London was commenced, and while it was pending, the
judges were changed ; and Saunders, who had been consulted
on the occasion, and had advised the proceeding on the part of
the crown, was made chief justice for the very purpose of giving
a judgment in favor of the crown ; his predecessor being removed
to make room for him. But since the Revolution of 1688, an
entire new character in this respect has been given to EngUsh
judicature. The judges have been made independent, and the
benefit has been widely and deeply felt. A simUar improvement
seems to have made its way into Scotland. Before the union
of the kingdoms, it cannot be said that there was any judicial
independence in Scotland ; and the highest names in Scottish
jurisprudence have been charged with being under influences
which could not, in modern times, be endured. It is even said,
that the practice of entaUs did not extensively exist in Scotland
tUl about the time of the reigns of the last princes of the Stuart
race, and that it was then intioduced to guard against unjust
forfeitures. It is strange, indeed, that this should happen at so
late a period, and that a most unnatural and artfficial state of
property should be owing to the fear of dependent judicatures.
I might add here, that the heritable jurisdictions, the greatest
almost of aU evUs connected with the administiation of justice,
were not aboUshed in Scotland tiU about the middle of the last
century ; so slowly does improvement make progress when op
posed by ignorance, prejudice, or interest.
In our own countiy, it was for years a topic of complaint,
before the Revolution, that justice was administered, in some of
the Colonies, by judges dependent on the British crown. The
Declaration of Independence itself puts forth this as a promi
nent grievance, among those which justified the Revolution.
The British king, it declares, " had made judges dependent on
his own wiU alone, for the tenure of their offices." It was there
fore to be expected, that, in estabUshing their own governments,
this important point of the independence of the judicial power
wonld be regarded by the States. Some of them have made
greater and others less provision on this subject; the more recent
constitutions, I beUeve, being generaUy framed with the best
guards for judicial independence.

Independence of the Judiciary 29
Those who oppose any additional security for the tenure of
judicial office have pressed to know what evU has been experi
enced, what injury has arisen, from the constitution as it is.
Perhaps none ; but if evils probably may arise, the question
is, whether the subject be not so important as to render it pru
dent to guard against that evU. If evU do arise, we may be
sure it wiU be a great evU ; if this power should happen to be
abused, the consequences would be most mischievous. It is
not a sufficient answer to say that we have as yet felt no in
convenience. We are bound to look to probable future events.
We have, too, the experience of other States. Connecticut, hav
ing had judges appointed annually, from the time of Charles
the Second, in the recent alteration of her constitution has pro
vided, that hereafter they shaU hold their office during good
behavior, subject to removal on the address of two thirds of each
house of the legislature. In Pennsylvania, the judges may be
removed, " for any reasonable cause," on the address of two
thirds of the two houses. In some of the States, three fourths
of each house are required. The new constitution of Maine has
a provision, with which I should be content ; which is, that no
judge shall be Uable to be removed by the legislature tUl the
matter of his accusation has been made known to him, and he
has had an opportunity of being heard in his defence. This
seems no more than common justice ; and yet it is much greater
than any security which at present exists in the constitution of
this Commonwealth. It wUl be found, if I mistake not, that
there are not more than two or three, out of all the States, which
have left the tenure of judicial office at the entire pleasure of the
legislature. It cannot be denied, that one great object of written constitu
tions is to keep the departments of government as distinct as
possible ; and for this purpose to impose restiaints designed to
liave that effect. And it is equaUy tiue, that there is no depart
ment on which it is more necessary to impose restiaints than
the legislature. The tendency of things is almost always to
augment the power of that department, in its relation to the
judiciary. The judiciary is composed of few persons, and those
not such as mis habituaUy in the pursuits and objects which
most engage pubUc men. They are not, or never should be,
poUtical men. They have often unpleasant duties to perform,

30 Constitution of Massachusetts
and their conduct is often Uable to be canvassed and censured,
where their reasons for it are not known, or cannot be under
stood. The legislature holds the pubUc purse. It fixes the com
pensation of aU other departments ; it appUes, as well as raises,
all revenue. It is a numerous body, and necessarUy carries along
with it a great force of pubUc opinion. Its members are public
men, in constant contact with one another, and with their con
stituents. It would seem to be plain enough, that, without con
stitutional provisions which should be fixed and certain, such a
department, in case of excitement, would be able to encroach
on the judiciary. Therefore is it, that a security of judicial
independence becomes necessary ; and the question is, whether
that independence be at present sufficiently secured.
The constitution being the supreme law, it follows of course,
that every act of the legislature, contiary to that law, must be
void. But who shaU decide this question ? ShaU the legislature
itself decide it ? If so, then the constitution ceases to be a legal,
and becomes only a moral restiaint on the legislature. K they,
and they only, are to judge whether their acts be conformable to
the constitiition, then the constitution is admonitory or advisory
only ; not legally binding ; because, if the constiuction of it rest
whoUy with them, their discretion, in particular cases, may be in
favor of very erroneous and dangerous constructions. Hence
the courts of law, necessarUy, when the case arises, must decide
upon the vaUdity of particular acts. These cases are rare, at
least in this Commonwealth ; but they would probably be less
so, if the character of the judiciary were less respectable than
it is. It is the theory and plan of the constitution to restiain the
legislature, as weU as other departments, and to subject their
acts to judicial decision, whenever it appears that such acts
infringe constitutional limits. Without this check, no certain
Umitation could exist on the exercise of legislative power. The
constitution, for example, declares, that the legislature shaU not
suspend the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus, except under
certain Umitations. If a law should happen to be passed re-
sti-aining personal Uberty, and an individual, feeUng oppressed
by it, should apply for his habeas corpus, must not the judges
decide what is the benefit of habeas corpus intended by the
constitution, what it is to suspend it, and whether the acts of

Independence of the Judiciary 31
the legislature do, in the given case, conform to the constitu
tion? All these questions would of course arise. The judge is
bound by his oath to decide according to law. The constitution
is the supreme law. Any act of the legislature, therefore, incon
sistent with that supreme law, must yield to it ; and any judge,
seeing this inconsistency, and yet giving effect to the law,
would violate both his duty and his oath. But it is evident that
this power, to be useful, must be lodged in independent hands.
If the legislature may remove judges at pleasure, assigning no
cause for such removal, of course it is not to be expected that
they would often find decisions against the constitutionaUty of
their own acts. If the legislature should, unhappily, be in a
temper to do a violent thing, it would probably take care to see
that the bench of justice was so constituted as to agree with it
in opinion.It is unpleasant to aUude to other States for negative exam
ples ; yet, if any one were incUned to the inquiry, it might be
found that cases had happened in which laws, known to be at
best very questionable as to their consistency with the constitu
tion, had been passed ; and at the same session, effectual meas
ures taken, under the power of removal by address, to create a
new bench. Such a coincidence might be accidental ; but the
frequent happening of such accidents would destroy the balance
of a free government. The history of aU the States, I beUeve,
shows the necessity of settled Umits to legislative power. There
are reasons, entirely consistent with upright and patiiotic mo
tives, which, nevertheless, evince the danger of legislative en
croachments. The subject is fuUy tieated by Mr. Madison, in
some numbers of the FederaUst, which weU deserve the consid
eration of the convention.
There is nothing, after aU, so important to individuals as the
upright administiation of justice. This comes home to every
man ; life, Uberty, reputation, property, aU depend on this. No
government does its duty to the people, which does not make
ample and stable provision for the exercise of this part of its
powers. Nor is it enough, that there are courts which wUl deal
justly with mere private questions. We look to the judicial tii
bunal for protection against Ulegal or unconstitutional acts,
from whatever quarter they may proceed. The courts of law, in
dependent judges, and enUghtened juries, are citadels of popular

32 Constitution of Massachusetts
Uberty, as weU as temples of private justice. The most essen
tial rights connected with poUtical Uberty are there canvassed
discussed, and maintained ; and if it should at any time so hap
pen that these rights should be invaded, there is no remedy but
a reUance on the courts to protect and vindicate them. There
is danger, also, that legislative bodies wiU sometimes pass laws
interfering with other private rights than those connected with
poUtical liberty. Individuals are too apt to apply to the legis
lative power to interfere with private cases or private proper
ty ; and such appUcations sometimes meet with favor and sup
port. There would be no security, if these interferences were
not subject to some subsequent constitutional revision, where aU
parties could be heard, and justice be administered according to
the standing laws.
These considerations are among those which, in my opinion,
render an independent judiciary equaUy essential to the preser
vation of private rights and pubUc Uberty. I lament the neces
sity of deciding this question at the present moment; and
should hope, if such immediate decision were not demanded,
that some modification of this report might prove acceptable to
the committee, since, in my judgment, some provision beyond
what exists in the present constitution is necessary.

Speeches in Congress

VOL. v.— 3

Bank of the United States*

On the 2d of January, 1815, the bill to incorporate a bank being
under consideration, Mr. Webster moved that it be recommitted to a se
lect committee, with instructions to make the following alterations, to
wit : —
1. To reduce the capital to twenty-five millions, with liberty to the
government to subscribe on its own account five millions.
2. To strike out the thirteenth section.
3. To strike out so much of said bill as makes it obligatory on the
bank to lend money to government.
4. To introduce a section providing, that if the bank do not com
mence its operations within the space of  months, from the day of
the passing of the act, the charter shall thereby be forfeited.
5. To insert a section allowing interest at the rate of  per cent.
on any bill or note of the bank, of which payment shall have been duly
demanded, according to its tenor, and refused ; and to inflict penalties
on any directors who shall issue any bills or notes during any suspen
sion of specie payment at the bank.
6. To provide that the said twenty-five millions of capital stock shall
be composed of five millions of specie, and twenty millions of any of
the stocks of the United States bearing an interest of six per cent., or of
treasury-notes. 7. To strike out of the bill that part of it which restrains the bank from
selling its stock during the war.
In support of this motion the following speech was delivered. Tho
motion did not prevail, but the bill itself was rejected the same day on
the third reading. Some of the main principles of these instructions
were incorporated mto the charter of the late bank, when that char
ter was granted, the following year ; especially those which were more
• A Speech delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States, on
the 2d of Januarv, 1815.

36 Speeches in Congress
particularly designed to insure the payment of the notes of the bank in
specie, at all times, on demand.
However the House may dispose of the motion before it, I
do not regret that it has been made. One object intended by it,
at least, is accompUshed. It presents a choice, and it shows
that the opposition which exists to the biU in its present state is
not an undistinguishing hostiUty to whatever may be proposed
as a national bank, but a hostiUty to an institution of such a
useless and dangerous nature as it is beUeved the existing pro
visions of the biU would estabUsh.
If the biU should be recommitted, and amended according to
the instiuctions which I have moved, its principles would be
materiaUy changed. The capital of the proposed bank wUl be
reduced from fifty to thirty miUions, and wUl be composed of spe
cie and stocks in nearly the same proportions as the capital of
the former Bank of the United States. The obUgation to lend
thirty mUUons of doUars to government, an obUgation which
cannot be fulfiUed vdthout committing an act of bankruptcy,
wUl be stiuck out. The power to suspend the payment of its
notes and bUls wUl be aboUshed, and the prompt and faithful
execution of its contiacts secured, as far as, from the nature of
things, it can be secured. The restiiction on the sale of its
stocks wUl be removed, and as it is a monopoly, provision wUl
be made that, if it shotUd not commence its operations in a rea
sonable time, the grant shaU be forfeited. Thus amended, the
biU would estabUsh an institution not unlike the last Bank of
the United States in any particular which is deemed material,
excepting only the legalized amount of capital.
To a bank of this nature I should at any time be wiUing to
give my support, not as a measure of temporary poUcy or as an
expedient for reUef from the present poverty of the tieasury, but
as an institution of permanent interest and importance, useful
to the government and countiy at all times, and most useful in
times of commercial prosperity.
I am sure. Sir, that the advantages which would at present
result from any bank are greatly overrated. To look to a bank,
as a source capable, not only of affording a circulating medium
to the countiy, but also of supplying the ways and means of
carrying on the war, especiaUy at a time when the countiy is

Bank of the United States 37
without commerce, is to expect much more than ever wiU be
obtained. Such high -wrought hopes can end only in disappoint
ment. The means of supporting an expensive war are not of
quite so easy acquisition. Banks are not revenue. They can
not supply its place. They may afford facUities to its coUec
tion and distiibution. They may furnish with convenience
temporary loans to government, in anticipation of its taxes,
and render important assistance, in divers ways, to the gen
eral operation of finance. They are useful to the state in their
proper place and sphere, but they are not sources of national
income. The stieams of revenue must flow from deeper fountains. The
credit and circulation of bank paper are the effects rather than
the causes of a profitable commerce and a weU-ordered system of
finance. They are the props of national wealth and prosperity,
not the foundations of them. Whoever shaU attempt to restore
the faUen credit of this countiy by the estabUshment of new
baiiks, merely that they may create new paper, and that govern
ment may have a chance of borrowing where it has not bor
rowed before, wUl find himself miserably deceived. It is under
the influence of no such vain hopes that I yield my assent to the
estabUshment of a bank on sound and proper principles. The
principal good I expect from it is rather future than present. I
do not see, indeed, that it is Ukely to produce evU at any time.
In times to come it wUl, I hope, be useful. If it were only to be
harmless, there would be sufficient reason why it should be sup
ported in preference to such a contiivance as is now in contem
plation. The bank which wUl be created by the biU, if it should pass
in its present form, is of a most extiaordinary, and, as I think,
alarming nature. The capital is to be fifty milUons of doUars ;
five millions in gold and sUver, twenty mUUons in the pubUc
debt created since the war, ten miUions in teeasury-notes, and
fifteen mUUons to be subscribed by government in stock to be
issued for that purpose. The ten milUons in tieasury-notes,
when received in payment of subscriptions to the bank, are to
be funded also in United States stocks. The stock subscribed
by government on its own account, and the stocks in which the
tieasury-notes are to be funded, are to be redeemable only at the
pleasure of the government. The war stock wUl be redeemable

38 Speeches in Congress
according to the terms upon which the late loans have been
negotiated. The capital of the bank, then, wUl be five milUons of specie
and forty-five mUlions of government stocks. In other words,
the bank wUl possess five milUons of doUars and the govern
ment wiU owe it forty-five milUons. The bank is restiained
from selling this debt of government during the war, and govern
ment is excused from paying untU it shall see fit. The bank is
also to be under obligation to loan to government thirty mUUona
of doUars on demand, to be repaid, not when the convenience
or necessity of the bank may require, but when debts due to the
bank from government are paid ; that is, when it shaU be the
good pleasure of government. This sum of thirty mUlions is to
supply the necessities of government, and to supersede the occa
sion of other loans. This loan wiU doubtless be made on the
first day of the existence of the bank, because the pubUc wants
can admit of no delay. Its condition, then, wUl be, that it has
five mUUons of specie, if it has been able to obtain so much,
and a debt of seventy -five mUUons, no part of which it can either
seU or call in, due to it from government.
The loan of thirty mUlions to government can only be made
by an immediate issue of bUls to that amount. If these bUls
should return, the bank wiU not be able to pay them. This is cer
tain ; and to remedy this inconvenience, power is given to the
directors, by the act, to suspend, at their own discretion, the pay
ment of their notes untU the President of the United States shall
otherwise order. The President wiU give no such order, because
the necessities of government wUl compel it to draw on the
bank tUl the bank becomes as necessitous as itself. Indeed,
whatever orders may be given or withheld, it wUl be utterly im
possible for the bank to pay its notes. No such thing is expect
ed from it. The first note it issues wiU be dishonored on its re
turn, and yet it wUl continue to pour out its paper so long as
government can apply it in any degree to its purposes.
What sort of an institution. Sir, is this ? It looks less like a
bank than a department of government. It wiU be properly the
paper-money department. Its capital is government debts ; the
amount of its issues will depend on government necessities;
government, in effect, absolves itself from its own debts to the
bank, and, by way of compensation, absolves the bank from its

Bank of the United States 39
own contracts with others. This is, indeed, a wonderful scheme
of finance. The government is to grow rich, because it is to
borrow without the obUgation of repaying, and is to borrow of a
bank which issues paper without UabiUty to redeem it. If this
bank, like other institutions which duU and plodding common
sense has erected, were to pay its debts, it must have some Um
its to its issues of paper, and therefore there would be a point
beyond which it could not make loans to government. This
would faU short of the wishes of the contiivers of this system.
They provide for an unUmited issue of paper in an entire ex
emption from payment. They found their baidt, in the first
place, on the discredit of government, and then hope to enrich
government out of the insolvency of their bank. With them,
poverty itself is the main source of supply, and bankruptcy a
mine of inexhaustible treasure. They tiust not in the ability of
the bank, but in its beggary ; not in gold and sUver coUected in
its vaults, to pay its debts, and fulfil its promises, but in its locks
and bars, provided by statute, to fasten its doors against the so
Ucitations and clamors of importunate creditors. Such an insti
tution, they flatter themselves, will not only be able to sustain
itself, but to buoy up the sinking credit of the government. A
bank which does not pay is to guarantee the engagements of a
government which does not pay ! " John Doe is to become se
curity for Richard Roe." Thus the empty vaults of the tieasu
ry are to be fUled from the equaUy empty vaults of the bank,
and the ingenious invention of a partnership between insolvents
is to restore and reestabUsh the credit of both.
Sir, I can view this only as a system of rank speculation and
enormous mischief. Nothing in our condition is worse, in my
opinion, than the incUnation of government to throw itself upon
such desperate courses. If we are to be saved, it is not to be
by such means. If public credit is to be restored, this is not one
of the measmres that wUl help to restore it. If the tieasury is
exhausted, this bank wUl not fUl it with any thing valuable. If
a safe circulating medium be wanted for the community, it wiU
not be found in the paper of such a corporation.
I wish. Sir, that those who imagine that these objects, or any
of them, wUl be effected by such a bank as this, would describe
the manner in which they expect it to be done. What is the
process which is to produce these results ? If it is perceived, it

40 Speeches in Congress
can be described. The bank wUl not operate either by miracle
or magic. Whoever expects any good from it ought to be able
to teU us in what way that good is to be produced. As yet, we
have had nothing but general ideas and vague and loose expres
sions. An indefinite and indistinct notion is entertained, no
body here seems to know on what ground, that this bank is to
reanimate pubUc credit, fiU the tieasury, and remove all the evUs
that have arisen firom the depreciation of the paper of the exist-
ing banks.
Some gentlemen, who do not profess themselves to be in aU
respects pleased with the provisions of the bUl, seem to content
themselves with an idea that nothing better can be obtained,
and that it is necessary to do something. A strong impression
that something must be done is the origin of many bad meas
ures. It is easy. Sir, to do something, but the object is to do
something useful. It is better to do nothing than to do mis
chief. It is much better, in my opinion, to make no bank, than
to pass the bUl as it now is.
The interests to be affected by this measure, the finances, the
pubUc credit, and the circulating medium of the countiy, are too
important to be hazarded in schemes Uke these. If we wish to
restore the pubUc credit and to reestabUsh the finances, we have
the beaten road before us. AU tiue analogy, aU experience, and
aU just knowledge of ourselves and our condition, point one way.
A wise and systematic economy, and a settled and substantial
revenue, are the means to be relied on ; not excessive issues of
bank-notes, a forced circulation, and aU the miserable contiivan
ces to which poUtical foUy can resort, with the idle expectation
of giving to mere paper the quaUty of money. These are aU
the inventions of a short-sighted poUcy, vexed and goaded by
the necessities of the moment, and thinking less of a permanent
remedy than of shifts and expedients to avoid the present dis
tress. They have been a thousand times adopted, and a thou
sand times exploded as delusive and ruinous, as destiuctive of
aU soUd revenue, and incompatible with the security of private
property. It is. Sir, sufficiently obvious, that, to produce any benefit,
this bank must be so constructed as that its notes shaU have
credit -with the pubUc. The first inquiry, therefore, should be,
whether the biUs of a bank of this kind will not be immediately

Bank of the United States 41
and greatly depreciated. I think they wiU. It would be a won
der if they should not. This effect wiU be produced by that
excessive issue of its paper which the bank must make in its
loan to government. Whether its issues of paper are excessive
wUl depend, not on the nominal amount of its capital, but on its
abiUty to redeem it. This is the only safe criterion. Very spe
cial cases may perhaps furnish exceptions, but there is, in gen
eral, no security for the credit of paper, but the abiUty in those
who emit to redeem it. Whenever bank-notes are not con
vertible into gold and sUver at the wUl of the holder, they be
come of less value than gold and sUver. AH. experiments on
this subject have come to the same result. It is so clear, and
has been so universaUy admitted, that it would be waste of
time to dweU upon it. The depreciation may not be sensibly
perceived the first day, or the first week, it takes place. It wiU
first be discerned in what is caUed the rise of specie ; it wiU next
be seen in the increased price of aU commodities. The circulat
ing medium of a commercial community must be that which is
also the circulating medium of other commercial communities,
or must be capable of being converted into that medium with
out loss. It must be able, not only to pass in payments and
receipts among individuals of the same society and nation, but
to adjust and discharge the balance of exchanges between dif
ferent nations. It must be something which has a value abroad,
as weU as at home, and by which foreign as well as domestic
debts can be satisfied. The precious metals alone answer these
purposes. They alone, therefore, are money, and whatever else
is to perform the offices of money must be their representative,
and capable of being turned into them at wUl. So long as bank
paper retains this quality, it is a substitute for money ; divested
of this, nothing can give it that character. No soUdity of funds,
no sufficiency of assets, no confidence in the solvency of bank
ing institutions, has ever enabled them to keep up their paper to
the value of gold and sUver any longer than they paid gold and
silver for it, on demand. This wUl continue to be the case so
long as those metals shaU continue to be the standard of value
and the general circulating medium among nations.
A striking Ulustiation of this common principle is found in
the early history of the Bank of England. In the year 1697, it
had been so Uberal of its loans, that it was compeUed to sus-

42 Speeches in Congress
pend the payment of its notes. Its paper immediately feU to a
discount of near twenty per cent. Yet such was the pubUc
opinion of the solidity of its funds, that its stock then sold for
one hundred and ten per cent., although no more than sixty per
cent, upon the subscription had been paid in. The same fate,
as is weU known, attended the banks of Scotland, when they
adopted the practice of inserting in their notes a clause, giving
the banks an option of paying their notes on demand, or six
months after demand, with interest. Paper of this sort was not
convertible into specie, at the pleasure of the holder ; and no
conviction of the abiUty of the bank which issued it could pre
serve it from depreciation.
The suspension of specie payments by the Bank of England,
in 1797, and the consequences which foUowed, afford no argu
ment to overthrow this general experience. If Bank of Eng
land notes were not immediately depreciated on that occasion,
depreciation, nevertheless, did ensue. Very favorable causes
existed to prevent their sudden depression. It was an old and
rich institution. It was known to be under the most discreet
and independent management. Government had no contiol
over it, to force it to make loans against its interest or its wiU.
On the contiary, it compelled the government to pay, though
with much inconvenience to itself, a very considerable sum
which was due to it. The countiy enjoyed, at that time, an
extensive commerce, and a revenue of three hundred milUons of
doUars was coUected and distiibuted through the bank. Under
aU these advantages, however, the difference of price between
bank-notes and coin became at one time so great, as to threaten
the most dangerous consequences. Suppose the condition of
England to have been reversed. Suppose that, instead of a
prosperous and increasing commerce, she had suffered the ruin
of her tiade, and that the product of her manufactures had lain
upon her hands, as the product of our agriculture now perishes
in ours. Does any one imagine that her circulating paper could
have existed and maintained any credit, in such a change of
her condition ? What ought to surprise us is, not that her bank
paper was depreciated, but that it was not depreciated sooner
and lower than in fact it was. The reason can only be found
in that extiaordinary combination of favorable circumstances,
which never existed before, and is hardly to be expected again.
Much less is it to be discovered in our condition at present.

Bank of the United States 43
But we have experience nearer home. The paper of aU the
banks south of New England has become depreciated to an
alarming extent. This cannot be denied. The idea that this
depreciation exists only at a distance from the banks respective
ly is unfounded and absurd. It exists everywhere. The rates of
exchange, both foreign and domestic, put this point beyond con
troversy. If a bUl of exchange on Europe can be purchased, as
it may, twenty per cent, cheaper in Boston than in Baltimore,
the reason must be that it is paid for in Boston in money, and
in Baltimore in something twenty per cent, less valuable than
money. Notwithstanding the depression of their paper, it is
not probable that any doubt is entertained of the sufficiency of
the funds of the principal banks. Certainly no such doubt is
the cause of the faU of their paper ; because the depression of
the paper of all the banks in any place is, as far as I learn, gen
eraUy uniform and equal ; whereas, if pubUc opinion proceeded
at aU upon the adequacy or inadequacy of their funds, it would
necessarUy come to different results in different cases, as some
of these institutions must be supposed to be richer than others.
Sir, something must be discovered which has hitherto escaped
the observation of mankind, before you can give to paper in
tended for circulation the value of a metsiUic cim-ency, any
longer than it represents that currency, and is convertible into it,
at the wiU of the holder. The paper of this bank, if you make
it, wiU be depreciated, for the same reason that the paper of
other banks that have gone before it, and of those which now
exist around us, has been depreciated, because it is not to pay
specie for its notes. Other institutions, setting out perhaps on
honest principles, have faUen into discredit, through mismanage
ment or misfortune. But this bank is to begin with insolvency.
It is to issue its biUs to the amount of thirty mUlions, when
every body knows it cannot pay them. It is to commence its
existence in dishonor. It is to draw its first breath in disgrace.
The promise contained in the first note it sends forth is to be a
false promise, and whoever receives the note is to take it with
the knowledge that it is not to be paid according to the terms
of it.
But this. Sir, is not aU. The framers of this biU have not
done their work by halves. They have put the depreciation of
the notes of their bank beyond aU doubt or uncertainty. They

44 Speeches in Congress
have made assurance doubly sure. In addition to excessive
issues of paper, and the faUure to make payments, both which
they provide for by law, they make the capital of the bank to
consist principally of public stock. If this stock should be
sold as in the former Bank of the United States, the evU would
be less. But the bank has not the power to seU it, and, for
aU purposes of enabling it to fulfil its engagements, its funds
might as weU be at the bottom of the ocean as in government
stocks, of which it cannot enforce payment, and of which it
cannot dispose. The credit of this institution is to be founded
on pubUc funds, not on private property or commercial credit.
It is to be a financial, not a commercial bank. Its credit can
hardly, therefore, be better at any time than the credit of the
government. If the stocks be depreciated, so of course must
every thing be which rests on the stocks. It would require extia
ordinary ingenuity to show how a bank, which is founded on
the pubUc debt, is to have any better reputation than the debt
itself. It must be some very novel invention which makes the
superstructure keep its place after the foundation has faUen.
The argument seems to stand thus. The pubUc funds, it is ad
mitted, have Uttle credit ; the bank will have no credit which it
does not borrow of the funds ; but the bank wiU be in full credit.
If, Sir, we were in a temper to learn wisdom from experience,
the history of most of the banks on the continent of Europe
might teach us the futiUty of aU these contrivances. Those in
stitutions, like this before us, were estabUshed for purposes of
finance, not purposes of commerce. The same fortune has hap
pened to them aU. Their credit has sunk. Their respective
governments go to them for money when they can get it no
where else ; and the banks can relieve their wants only by new
issues of their own paper. As this is not redeemed, the inva
riable consequence of depreciation foUows ; and this has some
times led to the miserable and destiuctive expedient of deprecia
tion of the coin itself. Such are the banks of Petersburg, Co
penhagen, Vienna, and other cities of Europe ; and whUe the
paper of these government banks has been thus depressed, that
of other banks existing in their neighborhood, unconnected with
government, and conducting their business on the basis of com
mercial credit, has retained a value equivalent to that of coin.
Excessive issues of paper, and a close connection with govern-

Bank of the United States 45
ment, are the circumstances which of aU others are the most
certain to destioy the credit of bank paper. If there were no
excessive issues, or, in other words, if the bank paid its notes in
specie on demand, its connection with government and its in
terest in the funds would not, perhaps, materially affect the
circulation of its paper, although they would naturally diminish
the value of its stock. But when these two circumstances exist
in the condition of any bank, that it does not pay its notes, and
that its funds are in public stocks, and aU its operations inti
mately blended with the operations of government, nothing fur
ther need be known, to be quite sure that its paper wiU not
answer the purpose of a creditable circulating medium.
I look upon it, therefore. Sir, as certain, that a very considera
ble discount wUl attach itself to the notes of this bank the first
day of their appearance ; that this discount wiU continue to in
crease ; and unless Congress should be able to furnish some
remedy which is not certain, the paper, in the end, wiU be worth
nothing. If this happens, not only wiU no one of the benefits
proposed be obtained, but evUs of the most alarming magnitude
wUl foUow. All the horrors of a paper-money system are before
us. If we venture on the present expedient, we shaU hardly be
able to avoid them. The ruin of pubUc aflairs and the wreck
of private property wiU ensue.
I would ask. Sir, whether the friends of this measure have
weU considered what effect it wUl produce on the revenue of the
country ? By the provisions of this biU, the notes of this bank
are to be received in payment of aU taxes and other dues to gov
ernment. They cannot be refused on account of the deprecia
tion of their value. Government binds itself to receive them at
par, although it should be obliged immediately to pay them out
at a discount of a hundred per cent. It is certain, then, that a
loss in the revenue wiU be sustained, equal to any depreciation
which may take place in this paper ; and when the paper shaU
come to nothing, the revenue of the countiy wUl come to noth
ing along with it. This has happened to other countries where
this wretched system has been adopted, and it wUl happen here.
The Austrian government resorted to a simUar experiment in a
very critical period of its affairs, in 1809, the year of the last
campaign between that country and France previous to the
coaUtion. Pressed by the necessities of the occasion, the gov-

46 Speeches in Congress
ernment caused a laige quantity of paper to be issued, which
was to be received in imposts and taxes. The paper immedi
ately feU to a depreciation of four for one. The consequence
was, that the government lost its revenue, and with it the
means of supplying its armies and defending its empire. Is
this government now ready. Sir, to put its resources aU at haz
ard, by pursuing a simUar course ? Is it ready to sacrifice its
whole substantial revenue and permanent suppUes to an Ul-con-
tiived, Ul-considered, dangerous, and ruinous project, adopted
only as the means of obtaining a Uttle present and momentary
reUef? It ought to be considered, also, what effects this bank wiU pro
duce on other banking institutions already existing, and on the
paper which they have issued. The aggregate capital of these
institutions is large. The amount of their notes is large, and
these notes constitute, at present, in a great portion of the coun
tiy, the only circulating medium, if they can be caUed a circu
lating medium. Whatever affects this paper, either to raise it
or depress it lower than it is, affects the interests of every man
in the community. It is sufficient on this point to refer to the
memorial from the banks of New York. That assures us, that
the operation of such a bank as this bUl would estabUsh must
be to increase the difficulties and distress w^hich the existing
banks now experience, and to render it nearly impossible for
them to resume the payment of their notes. This is what every
man would naturaUy expect. Paper already depreciated wiU
necessarUy be sunk stUl lower, when another flood of depreci
ated paper is forced into circulation.
Very recently this government refused to extend the charter
of the Bank of the United States, upon the ground that it was
unconstitutional for Congress to create banks. Many of the
State banks owe their existence to this decision. It was an in
vitation to the States to incorporate as much banking capital as
would answer aU the purposes of the countiy. Notwithstand
ing what we may now see and hear, it would then have been
deemed a gross imputation on the consistency of government,
if any man had expressed an expectation, that in five yesu-s all
these constitutional scruples would be forgotten, all the dangers
to poUtical Uberty from moneyed institutions disregarded, and a
bank proposed upon the most extiaordinary principles, with an

Bank of the United States 47
unprecedented amount of capital, and with no obUgation to ful
fil its contiacts. The State banks have not forced themselves in
the way of government. They were estabUshed, many of them
at least, when government had declared its purpose to have no
bank of its own. They deserve some regard on their own ac
count, and on account of those particularly concerned in them.
But they deserve much more consideration, on account of the
quantity of paper which is in circulation, and the interest which
the whole community has in it.
Let it also be recoUected, Sir, that the present condition of
the banks is principaUy owing to their advances to government.
The tieasury has borrowed of the banks, or of those who them
selves borrowed of the banks, tiU the banks have become as
poor, and almost as much discredited, as the tieasury itself.
They have depreciated their paper, nearly ruined themselves,
and brought the sorest distiess on the country, by doing that on
a smaU scale which this bank is to perform on a scale vastly
larger. It is almost unpardonable in the conductors of these
institutions, not to have foreseen the consequences which have
resulted from the course pursued by them. They were aU plain
and visible. If they have any apology, it is that they were no
blinder than the government, and that they yielded to those
who would take no denial. It wiU be altogether unpardonable
in us, if, with this as weU as aU other experience before us, we
continue to pursue a system which must inevitably lead us
through depreciation of currency, paper-money, tender-laws,
and aU the contemptible and miserable contrivances of disor
dered finance and national insolvency, to complete arid entire
bankruptcy in the end.
I hope the House wiU recommit the biU for amendment

The Legal Currency'

A BILL reported by Mr. Calhoun for the restoration of the currency
was rejected in the House of Representatives on the 25th of April, 1816.
On the 26th, Mr. Webster introduced three resolutions having the same
object in view ; and in support of them made the following speech.
The first two, being declaratory of principles only, were withdrawn
at the request of several gentlemen, who were in favor of the third
resolution, which contained Mr. Webster's plan for restoring the cur
rency. It provided that the Secretary of the Treasury should adopt such
measures as he might deem necessary, to cause, as soon as might be,
all sums of money due to the United States " to be collected and paid
in the legal currency of the United States, or treasury-notes, or notes
of the Bank of the United States, as by law provided and declared,
or in notes of banks which are payable and paid on demand, in the
said legal currency of the United States " ; and it directed that, after
the 20th of February next ensuing, nothing else should be received in
payment of the public dues.
This resolution was received with great favor by the House, and
passed through all the stages of legislation on the same day (the 26th
of April) by a majority of more than two thirds. It was approved by
President Madison on the 30th, and was completely successful in restor
ing a sound currency.
Mr. Speaker, — I have felt it to be my duty to caU the
attention of the House once more to the subject of the coUec
tion of the revenue, and to present the resolutions which are
* A Speech delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States,
on the 26th of April, 1816, on the Collection of the Revenue in the Legal Cur
rency of the Country.

The Legal Currency 49
now submitted. I have been the more inclined to do this from
an apprehension that the rejection, yesterday, of the bUl which
had been intioduced, may be construed into an abandonment,
on the part of the House, of all hope of remedying the existing
evU. I have had, it is tiue, some objections against proceed
ing by way of biU ; because the case is not one in which the
law is deficient, but one in which the execution of the law
is deficient. The great object, however, is to obtain a decis
ion of this and the other house, that the present mode of receiv
ing the revenue shaU not be continued; and as this might be
substantiaUy effected by the biU, I had hoped that it might
pass. This hope has been disappointed. The bUl has been
rejected. The House has put its negative upon the only propo
sition which has been submitted to it, for correcting a state of
tilings which every body knows to exist in plain violation of the
Constitution, and in open defiance of the written letter of the
law. For one, I can never consent to adjourn, leaving this
impUed sanction of the House upon aU that has taken place,
and all that may hereafter take place. I hope not to hear
again that there is not now time to act on this question. If
other gentiemen consider the question as important as I do,
they wiU not forbear to act on it from any desire, however
stiong, to bring the session to an early close.
The situation of the countiy, in regard to its finances and
the coUection of its revenues, is most deplorable. With a per
fectly sound legal currency, the national revenues are not col
lected in this currency, but in paper of various sorts and various
degrees of value. The origin and progress of this evU are dis
tinctly known, but it is not easy to see its duration or its future
extent, if an adequate remedy be not soon found. Before the
war, the business of the countiy was conducted principaUy by
means of the paper of the different State banks. As these
were in good credit, aud paid their notes in gold and sUver on
demand, no great evU was experienced from the circulation of
their paper. Not being, however, a part of the legal money of
the countiy, it could not, by law, be received in the payment of
duties, taxes, or other debts to government. But being paya
ble, and hitherto regularly paid, on demand, the coUectors and
agents of government had generaUy received it as cash ; it had
been deposited as cash in the banks which received the deposits

50 Speeches in Congress
of government, and from them it had been drawn as cash, and
paid off to creditors of the public.
During the war this state of things changed. Many of the
banks had been induced to make loans to a very great amount
to the government. These loans were made by an issue of their
own bUls. This proceeding threw into circulation an immense
quantity of bank paper, in no degree corresponding with the
mercantUe business of the countiy, and resting, for its payment
and redemption, on nothing but the government stocks, which
were held by the banks. The consequence immediately fol
lowed, which it would be imputing a great degree of blindness
both to the government and to the banks to suggest that they
had not foreseen. The excess of paper which was found every
where created alarm. Demands began to be made on the
banks, and they aU stopped payment. No contiivance to get
money without inconvenience to the people ever had a shorter
course of experiment, or a more unequivocal termination. The
depreciation of bank-notes was the necessary consequence of a
neglect or refusal to pay them, on the part of those who issued
them. It took place immediately, and has continued, with occa
sional fluctuations in the depression, to the present moment.
What still further increases the evU is, that this bank paper,
being the issue of very many institutions, situated in different
parts of the countiy, and possessing different degrees of credit,
the depreciation has not been, and is not now, uniform through
out the United States. It is not the same at Baltimore as at
PhUadelphia, nor the same at PhUadelphia as at New York.
In New England, the banks have not stopped payment in
specie, and of course their paper has not been depressed at
aU. But the notes of banks which have ceased to pay specie
have, nevertheless, been, and stiU are, received for duties and
taxes, in the places where such banks exist. The consequence
of aU this is, that the people of the United States pay their
duties and taxes in currencies of different values in different
places. In other words, taxes and duties are higher in some
places than they are in others, by as much as the value of
gold and sUver is greater than the value of the several descrip
tions of bank paper which are received by government. This
difference in relation to the paper of the Distiict where we now
are, is twenty-five per cent. Taxes and duties, therefore, col-

The Legal Currency 51
lected in Massachusetts, are one quarter higher than the taxes
and duties which are coUected, by virtue of the same laws, in
the Distiict of Columbia.
By the Constitution of the United States, it is certain that
aU duties, taxes, and excises ought to be uniform throughout
the country ; and that no preference should be given, by any
regulation of commerce or revenue, to the ports of one State
over those of another. This constitutional provision, it is obvi
ous, is flagrantiy violated. Duties and taxes are not uniform.
They are higher in some places than in others. A citizen of
New England pays his taxes in gold and silver, or their equiva
lent. From his hand the coUector wiU not receive, and is in
structed by government not to receive, the paper of the banks
which do not pay their notes on demand, and which notes he
could obtain twenty or twenty-five per cent, cheaper than that
which is demanded of him. Yet a citizen of the Middle States
pays his taxes in these notes at par. Can a greater injustice
than this be conceived? Can constitutional provisions be dis
regarded in a more essential point? Commercial preferences
Eilso are given, which, if they should be continued, would be
sufficient to annihUate the commerce of some cities and some
States, whUe they would greatly promote that of others. The
importing merchant of Boston pays the duties upon his goods,
either in specie or cash notes, which are at least twenty per
cent., or in tieasury-notes, which are ten per cent, more valu
able than the notes which are paid for duties, at par, by the
importing merchant at Baltimore. Surely this is not to be
endured. Such monstrous inequaUty and injustice cannot con
tinue. Since the commencement of this course of things, it
can be shown that the people of the Northern States have paid
a minion of doUars more than their just proportion of the pub
Uc burdens. A simUar inequaUty, though somewhat less in
degree, has faUen upon the States south of the Potomac, in
which the paper in circulation, although not equivalent to specie,
is yet of higher value than the bank-notes of this District, Mary
land, and the Middle States.
But it is not merely the inequaUty and injustice of this sys
tem, if that may be caUed system which is rather the want of
aU system, that need reform. It throws the whole revenue into
derangement and endless confusion. It prevents the possibiUty

52 Speeches in Congress
of order, method, or certainty in the pubUc receipts or disburse
ments. This mass of depressed paper, thrown out at first in
loans to accommodate government, has done Uttle else than
embarrass and distiess government. It can hardly be said to
circulate, but it Ues in the channel of circulation, and chokes it
up by its bulk and its sluggishness. In a great portion of the
countiy the dues are not paid, or are badly paid ; and in an
equal portion of the countiy the pubUc creditors are not paid, or
are paid badly.
It is quite clear, that by the statute aU duties and taxes are
required to be paid in the legal money of the United States,
or in tieasury-notes, agreeably to recent provisions. It is just
as clear, that the law has been disregarded, and that the notes
of banks of a hundred different descriptions, and almost as
many different values, have been received, and stiU are received,
where the statute requires legal money or tieasury-notes to be
paid. In these circumstances, I cannot persuade myself that Con
gress wiU adjourn, without attempting somethUig by way of
remedy. In my opinion, no greater evU has threatened us.
Nothing can more endanger, either the existence and preserva
tion of the public revenue, or the security of private property,
than the consequences which are to be apprehended from the
present course of things, if they be not arrested by a timely and
an effectual interference. Let gentlemen consider what wiU
probably happen, if Congress should rise without the adoption
of any measure on the subject.
Virginia, having passed a law for compelling the banks in
that State to limit the circulation of their paper, and resume
specie payments by the autumn, wUl, doubtless, repeal it. The
States farther to the south wiU probably faU into a simUar relax
ation, for it is hardly to be expected that they will have firmness
and perseverance enough to persist in their present most prudent
and commendable course, without the countenance of the gen
eral government. If, in addition to these events, an abandon
ment of the wholesome system which has thus far prevaUed in
the Northern States, or any relaxation of that system, should take
place, the government is in danger of faUing into a condition,
from which it wiU hardly be able to extiicate itself for twenty
years, if indeed it shaU ever be able to extricate itself; and if

The Legal Currency 53
that state of things, instead of being changed by the government,
shaU not change the government.
It is our business to foresee this danger, and to avoid it.
There are some poUtical evUs which are seen as soon as they
are dangerous, and which alarm at once as weU the people as
the government. Wars and invasions, therefore, are not always
the most certain destioyers of national prosperity. They come
in no questionable shape. They announce their own approach,
and the general security is preserved by the general alarm.
Not so with the evUs of a debased coin, a depreciated paper cur
rency, or a depressed and falUng pubUc credit. Not so with the
plausible and insidious mischiefs of a paper-money system.
These insinuate themselves in the shape of faciUties, accommo
dation, and reUef They hold out the most faUacious hope
of an easy payment of debts, and a Ughter burden of tax
ation. It is easy for a portion of the people to imagine that
government may properly continue to receive depreciated paper,
because they have received it, and because it is more conven
ient to obtain it than to obtain other paper or specie. But on
these subjects it is that government ought to exercise its own
pecuUar wisdom and caution. It is supposed to possess, on
subjects of this nature, somewhat more of foresight than has
faUen to the lot of individuals. It is bound to foresee the evU
before every man feels it, and to take all necessary measures to
guard against it, although they may be measures attended with
»ome difficulty and not without temporary inconvenience. In
my humble judgment, the evU demands the immediate attention
of Congress. It is not certain, and in my opinion not probable,
that it wiU ever cure itself It is more likely to grow by indul
gence, whUe the remedy which must in the end be appUed wiU
become less efficacious by delay.
The only power which the general government possesses of
restiaiiung the issues of the State banks, is to refuse their notes
in the receipts of the treasury. This power it can exercise now,
or at least it can provide now for exercising in reasonable
time, because the currency of some part of the countiy is yet
sound, and the evil is not universal. If it should become
universal, who that hesitates now wiU then propose any ade
quate means of reUef? If a measure Uke the biU of yester
day, or the resolutions of to-day, can hardly pass here now,

54 Speeches in Congress
what hope is there that any efficient measure wUl be adopted
hereafter ?
The conduct of the tieasury department in receiving the notes
of the banks, after they had suspended payment, might, or might
not, have been excused by the necessity of the case. That is
not now the subject of inquiry. I wish such inquiry had been
instituted. It ought to have been. It is of dangerous conse
quence to permit plain omissions to execute the law to pass off,
under any circumstances, without inquiry. It would probably be
easier to prove that the tieasury must have continued to receive
such notes, or that all payments to government would have
been suspended, than it would be to justify the previous nego
tiations of great loans at the banks, which was a voluntary tians
action, induced by no particular necessity, and which is, never
theless, beyond doubt, the principal cause of their present con
dition. But I have expressed my belief on more than one
occasion, and I repeat the opinion, that it was the duty, and in
the power, of the Secretary of the Treasury, on the return of
peace, to return to the legal and proper mode of coUecting the
revenue. The paper of the banks rose on that occasion al
most to an equaUty with specie ; that was the favorable mo
ment. The banks in which the pubUc money was deposited
ought to have been induced to lead the way, by the sale of their
government stocks, and other measures calculated to bring about,
moderately and graduaUy, but regularly and certainly, the resto
ration of the former and only safe state of things. It can hardly
be doubted, that the influence of the tieasury could have affected
aU this. If not, it could have withdrawn the deposits and coun
tenance of government from institutions which, against aU rule
and all propriety, were holding great sums in government stocks,
and making enormous profits from the circulation of their own
dishonored paper. That which was most wanted was the des
ignation of a time for the corresponding operation of banks in
different places. This could have been made by the head of the
tieasury, better than by any body or every body else. But the
occasion was suffered to pass by unimproved, and the credit of
the banks soon feU again, when it was found they used none
of the means which the opportunity afforded them for enabling
them to fulfil their engagements.
As to anv power of compulsion to be exercised over the State

The Legal Currency S5
banks, they are not subject to the direct contiol of the general
government. It is for the State authorities which created them
to decide whether they have acted according to theii: charters,
and if not, what shaU be the remedy for their irregularities. But
from such of them as continued to receive deposits of public
money, government had a right to expect that they would con
duct their concerns according to the safe and well-known prin
ciples which should properly govern such institutions. It is
bound also to coUect its taxes of the people on a uniform sys
tem. These rights and these duties are too important to be sur
rendered to the accommodation of any particular interest or any
temporary purpose.
The resolutions before the House take no notice of the State
banks. They express neither praise nor censure of them. They
neither commend them for their patiiotism in the loans made to
government, nor propose to tax them for their neglect or refusal
to pay their debts. They assume no power of interfering with
these institutions. They say not one word about compeUing
them to resume their payments ; they leave that to the consider
ation of the banks themselves, or to those who have a right to
call them to account for any misconduct in that respect. But
the resolutions declare that taxes ought to be equal ; that pref
erences ought not to be given ; that the revenues of the countiy
ought not to be diminished in amount, nor hazarded altogether,
by the receipt of varying and uncertain paper ; and that the
present state of things, in which aU these unconstitutional, iUe
gal, and dangerous ingredients are mixed, ought not to exist.
It has been said, that these resolutions may be constiued into
a justification of the past conduct of the treasury department.
Such an objection has been anticipated. It was made, in my
opinion, with much more justice to the bUl rejected yesterday,
and a provision was therefore subsequently intioduced into
that bUl to exclude such an inference. This is certainly not the
time to express any justification or approbation of the conduct
of that department on this subject, and I tiust these resolutions
do not imply it. Nor do the resolutions propose to express
any censure. A sufficient reason for decUning to do either is,
that the facts are not sufficiently known. What loss has actu
aUy happened, what amount — it is said to be large — may be
now in the tieasury, in notes which wUl not pass, or under what

56 Speeches in Congress
circumstances these were received, is not now sufficiently ascer
tained. But before these resolutions are rejected, on the ground that
they may shield the tieasury department from responsibiUty, it
ought to be clearly shown that they are capable of such a con
stiuction. The mere passing of any resolution cannot have that
effect. A declaration of what ought to be done does not neces
sarily imply any sanction of what has been done. It may some
times imply the contiary. These resolutions cannot be made to
imply any more than this, — that the financial affairs of the coun
try are in such a condition that the revenue cannot be instantly
coUected in legal currency. This they do imply, and this I sup
pose almost aU admit to be tiue. An instantaneous execution
of the law, without warning or notice, could in my opinion pro
duce nothing, in a portion of the country, but an entire suspen
sion of payments.
But to whose fault it is owing that the affairs of the country
are reduced to this condition, they do not declare. They do not
prevent, or in any degree embarrass, future inquiry on that sub
ject. They speak to the fact that the finances are deranged.
They say, also, that reformation, though it must be gradual,
ought to be immediately begun, and to be carried to perfection
in the shortest time practicable. They cannot by any fair con
struction be made to express the approbation of Congress on the
past conduct of any high officer of government ; and if the time
shaU ever come when this House shaU deem investigation neces
sary, it must be a case of very unpromising aspect, and of most
fearful issue, which shaU afford no other hope of escape than by
setting up these resolutions by way of bar to an inquiry.
Nor is it any objection to this measure that inquiry has not
first been had. Two duties may be supposed to have rested on
the House : the one, to inquire into the origin of the evU, if it
needed inquiry ; and the other, to find and apply the remedy.
Because one of these duties has not hitherto been discharged, is
no reason why the other should be longer neglected. WhUe we
are deciding which to do first, the time of the session is going
by us, and neither may be done. In the mean time, pubUc mis
chiefs of unknown magnitude and incalculable duration threaten
the countiy. I see no equivalent, no consolation, no mitigation,
for these evUs in the future responsibiUty of departments. Let

The Legal Currency 57
gentiemen show me any responsibiUty which wiU not be a name
and a mockery. If, when we meet here again, it shall be found
that aU the barriers which have hitherto, in any degree, re
stiained the emissions of a paper money of the very worst sort,
have given way, and that the floods have broken in upon us and
come over us, — if it shaU be found that revenues have failed, that
the pubUc credit, now a Uttie propped and supported by a state of
peace and commerce, has again tottered and faUen to the ground,
and that all the operations of government are at a stand, —
what then wiU be the value of the responsibiUty of departments ?
How great, then, the value of inquiry, when the evU is past pre
vention, when officers may have gone out of place, and when,
indeed, the whole administration wiU necessarily be dissolving
by the expiration of the term for which the chief executive mag
istiate was chosen ? I cannot consent to stake the chance of
the greatest pubUc mischiefs upon a reUance on any such re
sponsibiUty. The stakes are too unequal.
As to the opinion advanced by some, that the object of the res
olutions cannot in any way be answered, that the revenues cannot
be coUected otherwise than as they are now, in the paper of any
and every banking association which chooses to issue paper, it
cannot for a moment be admitted. This would be at once giv
ing up the government ; for what is government without reve
nue, and what is a revenue that is gathered together in the vary
ing, fluctuating, discredited, depreciated, and stiU falUng prom
issory notes of two or three hundred distinct, and, as to this gov
ernment, irresponsible banking companies ? If it cannot coUect
its revenues in a better manner than this, it must cease to be a
government. This thing, therefore, is to be done ; at any rate it
is to be attempted. That it wiU be accompUshed by the tieas
ury department, without the interference of Congress, I have no
beUef. If from that source no reformation came when reforma
tion was easy, it is not now to be expected. EspeciaUy aftei
the vote of yesterday, those whose interest it is to continue the
present state of things wiU arm themselves with the authority
of Congress. They -wUl justify themselves by the decision of
this House. They wUl say, and say tiuly, that this House, hav
ing taking up the subject and discussed it, has not thought fit
so much as to declare that it is expedient ever to reUeve the
country or its revenues from a paper-money system. Whoever

58 Speeches in Congress
beUeves that the treasm-y department wiU oppose this tide, aided
as it wUl be by stiong feeUng and great interest, has more faith
in that department than has faUen to my lot. It is the duty of
this House to interfere with its own authority. Having taxed
the people with no Ught hand, it is now its duty to take care
that the people do not sustain these burdens in vain. The taxes
are not borne without feeUng. They wUl not be borne without
complaint, if, by mismanagement in coUection, their utUity to
government should be lost, and they should get into the tieasury
at last only in discredited and useless paper.
A bank of thirty-five miUions has been created for the pro
fessed purpose of correcting the evils of our circulation, and
facUitating the receipts and expenditures of government. I am
not so sanguine in the hope of great benefit from this measure
as others are. But the tieasury is also authorized to issue
twenty-five milUons of tieasury-notes, eighteen or twenty mU
lions of which remain yet to be issued, and which are also
aUowed by law to be received for duties and taxes. In addition
to these is the coin which is in the countiy, and which is sure
to come forth into circulation whenever there is a demand for it.
These means, if wisely and skilfuUy administered, are sufficient
to prevent any particular pressure, or great inconvenience, in
returning to the legal mode of coUecting the revenue. It is tiue,
it may be easier for the people in the States in which the depre
ciated paper exists to pay their taxes in such paper than in the
legal currency of tieasury-notes, because they can get it cheaper.
But this is only saying that it is easier to pay a smeiU tax than
to pay a large one, or that money costs more than that which is
less valuable than money, a proposition not to be disputed.
But a medium of payment convenient for the people and safe
for the government wiU be furrushed, and may everywhere be
obtained for a reasonable price. This is aU that can justly be
expected of Congress. Having provided this, they ought to
require aU parts of the countiy to conform to the same measure
of justice. If taxes be not necessary, they should not be laid.
If laid, they ought to be coUected without preference or par-
tiaUty. But while some gentlemen oppose the resolutions because
they fix a day too near, others think they fix a day too distant.
In my own judgment, it is not so material what the time is, as

The Legal Currency 59
it is to fix a time. The great object is to settle the question,
that our legal currency is to be preserved, and that we are not
about to embark on the ocean of paper money. The State
banks, if they consult their own interest, or the interest of the
community, wUl dispose of their government stocks, and pre
pare themselves to redeem their paper and fulfil their contiacts.
If they should not adopt this comse, there wUl be time for the
people to be informed that the paper of such institutions wiU
not answer the demands of government, and that duties and
taxes must be paid in the manner provided by law.
I cannot say, indeed, that this measure wiU certainly produce
the desired effect. It may faU. Its success, as is obvious, must
essentiaUy depend on the course pursued by the tieasury depart
ment. But its tendency, I think, wUl be to produce good. It
wUl, I hope, be a proof that Congress is not regardless of its
duty. It wiU be evidence that this great subject has not passed
without notice. It wiU record om- determination to resist the
intioduction of a most destiuctive and miserable policy into our
system ; and if there be any sanction or authority in the Consti
tution and the law, if there be any regard for justice and
equality, if there be any care for the national revenue, or any
concern for the pubUc interest, let gentlemen consider whether
they wUl reUnquish their seat here before this or some other
measure be adopted.

The Revolution in Greece*

The rise and progress of the revolution in Greece attracted great
attention in the United States. Many obvious causes contributed to this
effect, and their influence was seconded by the direct appeal made to
the people of America, by the first political body organized in Greece
after the breaking out of the revolution, viz. " The Messenian Senate
of Calamata." A formal address was made by that body to the people
of the United States, and forwarded by their committee (of which the
celebrated Koray was chairman), to a friend and correspondent in this
country. This address was translated and widely circulated ; but it was
not to be expected that any great degree of confidence should be at once
generally felt in a movement undertaken against such formidable odds.
The progress of events, however, in 1822 and 1823, was such as to
create an impression that the revolution in Greece had a substantial
foundation in the state of affairs, in the awakened spirit of that country,
and in the condition of public opinion throughout Christendom. The
interest felt in the struggle rapidly increased in the United States. Lo
cal committees were formed, animated appeals were made, and funds
collected, with a view to the relief of the victims of the war.
On the assembling of Congress, in December, 1823, President Mon
roe made the revolution in Greece the subject of a paragraph in his
annual message, and on the 8th of December Mr. Webster moved the
following resolution in the House of Representatives : —
" Resolved, That provision ought to be made by law, for defraying
the expense incident to the appointment of an Agent or Commissioner
to Greece, whenever the President shall deem it expedient to make such
appointment." These, it is believed, are the first official expressions favorable to the
mdependence of Greece uttered by any of the governments of Christen
dom, and no doubt contributed powerfully towards the creation of that
feeling throughout the civilized world which eventually led to the battle
• A Speech delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States
on the 19th of January, 1824.

The Revolution in Greece 6i
of Navarino, and the liberation of a portion of Greece from the Turkish
yoke. The House of Representatives having, on the 19th of January, re
solves itself into a committee of the whole, and this resolution being
taken into consideration, Mr. Webster spoke to the following effect.
I AM afraid, Mr. Chairman, that, so far as my part in this dis
cussion is concerned, those expectations which the public ex
citement existing on the subject, and certain associations easUy
suggested by it, have conspired to raise, may be disappointed.
An occasion which caUs the attention to a spot so distinguished,
so connected with interesting recollections, as Greece, may natu
raUy create something of warmth and enthusiasm. In a grave,
poUtical discussion, however, it is necessary that those feeUngs
should be chastised. I shaU endeavor properly to repress them,
although it is impossible that they should be altogether extin
guished. We must, indeed, fly beyond the civiUzed world ; we
must pass the dominion of law and the boundaries of knowl
edge ; we must, more especiaUy, withdraw ourselves from this
place, and the scenes and objects which here surround us, — if we
would separate ourselves entirely from the influence of aU those
memorials of herself which ancient Greece has transmitted for
the admiration and the benefit of manldnd. This free form of
government, this popular assembly, the common council held for
the common good, — where have we contemplated its earUest
models ? This practice of free debate and pubUc discussion,
the contest of mind with mind, and that popular eloquence,
which, if it were now here, on a subject like this, would move
the stones of the Capitol, — whose was the language in which
aU these were first exhibited ? Even the edifice in which we
assemble, these proportioned columns, this ornamented archi
tecture, aU remind us that Greece has existed, and that we, Uke
the rest of mankind, are greatly her debtors.*
But I have not intioduced this motion in the vain hope of
discharging any thing of this accumulated debt of centm-ies. I
have not acted upon the expectation, that we, who have inher
ited this obUgation from our ancestors, should now attempt to
pay it to those who may seem to have inherited from their an-
* The interior of the hall of the House of Representatives is surrounded by a
magnificent colonnade of the composite order.

62 Speeches in Congress
cestors a right to receive payment. My object is nearer and
more immediate, fl wish to take occasion of the stiuggle of an
interesting and gallant people, in the cause of Uberty and Chris
tianity, to draw the attention of the House to the circumstances
which have accompanied that stiuggle, and to the principles
which appear to have governed the conduct of the great states
of Europe in regard to it ; and to the effects and consequences
of these principles upon the independence of nations, and espe
cially upon the institutions of free governments. What I have
to say of Greece, therefore, concerns the modern, not the ancient ;
the Uving, and not the dead. It regards her, not as she exists in
history, tiiumphant over time, and tyranny, and ignorance ; but
as she now is, contending, against fearful odds, for being, and
for the common privUeges of human nature.
As it is never difficult to recite commonplace remarks and
tiite aphorisms, so it may be easy, I am aware, on this occa
sion, to remind me of the wisdom which dictates to men a care
of their own affairs, and admonishes them, instead of searching
for adventures abroad, to leave other men's concerns in their
own hands. It may be easy to caU this resolution Quixotic, the
emanation of a crusading or propagandist spirit. All this, and
more, may be readUy said ; but aU this, and more, wiU not be
allowed to fix a character upon this proceeding, untU that is
proved which it takes for granted. Let it first be shown, that
in this question there is nothing which can affect the interest,
the character, or the duty of this country. Let it be proved, that
we are not caUed upon, by either of these considerations, to ex
press an opinion on the subject to which the resolution relates.
Let this be proved, and then it wUl indeed be made out, that
neither ought this resolution to pass, nor ought the subject of it
to have been mentioned in the communication of the President
to us. But, in my opinion, this cannot be shown^t In my judg
ment, the subject is interesting to the people and the govern
ment of this country, and we are caUed upon, by considerations
of great weight and moment, to express our opinions upon it.
These considerations, I think, spring from a sense of our own
duty, ornr character, and our own interest. I wish to tieat the
subject on such grounds, exclusively, as are truly American; but
then, in considering it as an American question, I cannot forget
the age in which we Uve, the prevaUing spirit of the age, the in-

The Revolution in Greece 63
teresting questions which agitate it, and our own pecuUar rela
tion in regard to these interesting questions. Let this be, then,
and as far as I am concerned I hope it will be, purely an Ameri
can discussion ; but let it embrace, nevertheless, every thing that
fairly concerns America. Let it comprehend, not merely her
present advantage, but her permanent interest, her elevated
character as one of the free states of the world, and her duty
towards those great principles which have hitherto maintained
the relative independence of nations, and which have, more es
peciaUy, made her what she is.
At the commencement of the session, the President, in the
discharge of the high duties of his office, caUed our attention to
the subject to which this resolution refers. " A stiong hope,"
says that communication, " has been long entertained, founded
on the heroic struggle of the Greeks, that they would succeed in
their contest, and resume their equal station among the nations
of the earth. It is beUeved that the whole civiUzed world takes
a deep interest in their welfare. Although no power has de
clared in their favor, yet none, according to our information, has
taken part against them. Their cause and their name have
protected them from dangers which might ere this have over
whelmed any other people. The ordinary calculations of inter
est, and of acquisition with a view to aggrandizement, which
mingle so much in the tiansactions of nations, seem to have
had no effect in regard to them. From the facts which have
come to our knowledge, there is good cause to believe that theii
enemy has lost for ever aU dominion over them ; that Greece wiU
become again an independent nation."
It has appeared to me that the House should adopt some
resolution reciprocating these sentiments, so far as it shaU ap
prove them. More than twenty years have elapsed since Con
gress first ceased to receive such a communication from the
President as could properly be made the subject of a general an
swer. I do not mean to find fault with this reUnquishment of a
former and an ancient practice. It may have been attended
with inconveniences which justffied its aboUtion. But, certain
ly, there was one advantage belonging to it ; and that is, that it
furnished a fit opportunity for the expression of the opinion of
the houses of Congress upon those topics in the executive com
munication which were not expected to be made the immediate

64 Speeches in Congress
subjects of direct legislation. Since, therefore, the President's
message does not now receive a general answer, it has seemed
to me to be proper that, in some mode, agreeable to our own
usual form of proceeding, we should express our sentiments
upon the important and interesting topics on which it tieats.
If the sentiments of the message in respect to Greece be
proper, it is equaUy proper that this House should reciprocate
those sentiments. The present resolution is designed to have
that extent, and no more. If it pass, it wUl leave any future
proceeding where it now is, in the discretion of the executive gov
ernment. It is but an expression, under those forms in which
the House is accustomed to act, of the satisfaction of the House
with the general sentiments expressed in regard to this subject
in the message, and of its readiness to defray the expense inci
dent to any inquiry for the purpose of further information, or
any other agency which the President, in his discretion, shall see
fit, in whatever manner and at whatever time, to institute. The
whole matter is stUl left in his judgment, and this resolution can
in no way restiain its unUmited exercise.
I might weU, Mr. Chairman, avoid the responsibiUty of this
measure, if it had, in my judgment, any tendency to change the
poUcy of the countiy. With the general course of that poUcy
I am quite satisfied. The nation is prosperous, peaceful, and
happy ; and I should very reluctantly put its peace, prosperity,
or happiness at risk. It appears to me, howeveir, that this reso
lution is stiictly conformable to our general poUcy, and not only
consistent with our interests, but even demanded by a large and
Uberal view of those interests.
It is certainly tiue that the just poUcy of this country is, in the
first place, a peaceful poUcy. No nation ever had less to expect
from forcible aggrandizement. The mighty agents which are
working out our greatness are time, industry, and the arts. Our
augmentation is by grovrth, not by acquisition ; by internal de
velopment, not by external accession. No schemes can be sug
gested to us so magnfficent as the prospects which a sober con
templation of our own condition, unaided by projects, uninflu
enced by ambition, fairly spreads before us. A countiy of such
vast extent, with such varieties of soU and climate, with so much
pubUc spirit and private enterprise, with a population increasing
so much beyond former example, with capacities of improve-

The Revolution in Greece 65
ment not only unapplied or unexhausted, but even, in a great
measure, as yet unexplored, — so free in its institutions, so mild
in its laws, so secure in the title it confers on every man to his
own acquisitions, — needs nothing but time and peace to carry
it forward to almost any point of advancement.
In the next place, I take it for granted that the policy of this
countiy, springing from the nature of our government and the
spirit of all our institutions, is, so far as it respects the interest
ing questions which agitate the present age, on the side of lib
eral and enUghtened sentiments. The age is extiaordinary ; the
spirit that actuates it is pecuUar and marked ; and our own re
lation to the times we Uve in, and to the questions which in
terest them, is equaUy marked and pecuUar. We are placed, by
our good fortune and the wisdom and valor of our ancestors, in
a condition in which we can act no obscure part. Be it for
honor, or be it for dishonor, whatever we do is sure to attract the
observation of the world. As one of the free states among the
nations, as a great and rapidly rising repubUc, it would be im
possible for us, if we were so disposed, to prevent our principles,
our sentiments, and our example from producing some effect
upon the opinions and hopes of society throughout the civUized
world. It rests probably with ourselves to determine whether
the influence of these shaU be salutary or pernicious.
It cannot be denied that the great poUtical question of this
age is that between absolute and regulated governments. The
substance of the contioversy is whether society shaU have any
part in its own government. Whether the form of government
shaU be that of Umited monarchy, vntix more or less mixture of
hereditary power, or whoUy elective or representative, may per
haps be considered as subordinate. The main controversy is
between that absolute rule, which, whUe it promises to govern
weU, means, nevertheless, to govern vdthout contiol, and that
constitutional system which restiains sovereign discretion, and
asserts that society may claim as matter of right some effective
power in the estabUshment of the laws which are to regulate it.
The spirit of the times sets with a most powerful current in fa
vor of these last-mentioned opinions. It is opposed, however
whenever and wherever it shows itself, by certain of the great
potentates of Europe ; and it is opposed on grounds as appli
cable in one civiUzed nation as in another, and which would
VOL. V. — 5

66 Speeches in Congress
justify such opposition in relation to the United States, as well
as in relation to any other state or nation, if time and circum
stances should render such opposition expedient.
What part it becomes this countiy to take on a question of
this sort, so far as it is caUed upon to take any part, cannot be
doubtful. Our side of this question is settled for us, even with
out our own volition. Our history, our situation, our character,
necessarUy decide our position and our course, before we have
even time to ask whether we have an option. Our place is on
the side of free institutions. From the earUest settlement of
these States, their inhabitants were accustomed, in a greater or
less degree, to the enjoyment of the powers of self-government; f
and for the last half-century they have sustained systems of gov
ernment entirely representative, yielding to themselves the great
est possible prosperity, and not leaving them without distinction
and respect among the nations of the earth. This system we
are not Ukely to abandon ; and whUe we shaU no farther recom
mend its adoption to other nations, in whole or in part, than it
may recommend itself by its visible influence on our own growth
and prosperity, we are, nevertheless, interested to resist the es
tabUshment of doctrines which deny the legaUty of its founda
tions. We stand as an equal among nations, claiming the fuU
benefit of the estabUshed international law ; and it is our duty
to oppose, from the earUest to the latest moment, any innova
tions upon that code which shall bring into doubt or question
our own equal and independent rights.
I wiU now, Mr. Chairman, advert to those pretensions put
forth by the aUied sovereigns of Continental Europe, which seem
to me calculated, if unresisted, to bring into disrepute the prin
ciples of our government, and, indeed, to be whoUy incompatible
with any degree of national independence. I do not intioduce
these considerations for the sake of topics. I am not about to
declaim against crowned heads, nor to quarrel with any country
for preferring a form of government different from our own.
The right of choice that we exercise for ourselves, I am quite
wiUing to leave also to others. But it appears to me that the
pretensions to which I have alluded are whoUy inconsistent with
the independence of nations generally, without regard to the
question whether their governments be absolute, monarchical
and Umited, or purely popular and representative. I have a

The Revolution in Greece 67
most deep and thorough conviction, that a new era has arisen
in the world, that new and dangerous combinations are taking
place, promulgating doctiines and fraught with consequences
whoUy subversive in their tendency of the public law of nations
and of the general Uberties of mankind. Whether this be so, or
not, is the question which I now propose to examine, upon such
grounds of information as are afforded by the common and pub
Uc means of knowledge.
Every body knows that, since the final restoration of the
Bourbons to the throne of France, the Continental powers have
entered into sundry affiances, which have been made public, and
have held several meetings or congresses, at which the principles
of their poUtical conduct have been declared. These things
must necessarUy have an effect upon the international law of
the states of the world. If that effect be good, and according to
the principles of that law, they deserve to be applauded. If, on
the contiEiry, their effect and tendency be most dangerous, their
principles whoUy inadmissible, their pretensions such as would
aboUsh every degree of national independence, then they are to
be resisted.
I begin, Mr. Chairman, by drawing your attention to the
tieaty concluded at Paris in September, 1815, between Russia,
Prussia, and Austiia, commonly caUed the Holy AUiance. ' This
singular affiance appears to have originated with the Emperor
of Russia ; for we are informed that a draft of it was exhibited
by him, personally, to a plenipotentiary of one of the great pow
ers of Europe, before it was presented to the other sovereigns
who ultimately signed it.* This instrument professes nothing,
certainly, which is not extiemely commendable and praisewor
thy. It promises only that the contiacting parties, both in rela
tion to other states, and in regard to their own. subjects, wUl
observe the rules of justice and Christianity. In confirmation
of these promises, it makes the most solemn and devout reUgious
invocations. Now, although such an alUance is a novelty in
European history, the world seems to have received this treaty,
upon its first promulgation, with general charity. It was com
monly understood as Uttle or nothing more than an expression
* See Lord Castlereagh's speech in the House of Commons, February 3, 1816.
Debates in Parliament, Vol. XXXVI . p. 355 ; where also the treaty may he
fotmd at length.

68 Speeches in Congress
of thanks for the successful termination of the momentous con
test in which those sovereigns had been engaged. It stiU seems
somewhat unaccountable, however, that these good resolutions
should require to be confirmed by tieaty. Who doubted that
these august sovereigns would tieat each other with justice, and
rule their own subjects in mercy? And what necessity was
there for a solemn stipulation by tieaty, to insure the perform
ance of that which is no more than the ordinary duty of every
government ? It would hardly be admitted by these sovereigns,
that by this compact they consider themselves bound to intro
duce an entire change, or any change, in the course of their own
conduct. Nothing substantiaUy new, certainly, can be supposed
to have been intended. What principle, or what practice, there
fore, caUed for this solemn declaration of the intention of the
parties to observe the rules of reUgion and justice ?
It is not a Uttle remarkable, that a writer of reputation upon
the PubUc Law, described, many yeeirs ago, not inaccurately,
the character of this affiance. I aUude to Puffendorf. " It seems
useless," says he, " to frame any pacts or leagues, barely for the
defence and support of universal peace ; for by such a league
nothing is superadded to the obUgation of natured law, and no
agreement is made for the performance of any thing which the
parties were not previously bound to perform ; nor is the origi
nal obUgation rendered firmer or stionger by such an addition.
Men of any tolerable culture and civilization might weU be
ashamed of entering into any such compact, the conditions of
which imply only that the parties concerned shaU not offend in
any clear point of duty. Besides, we should be guUty of great
irreverence towards God, should we suppose that his injunctions
had not already laid a sufficient obUgation upon us to act justiy,
unless we ourselves voluntarUy consented to the same engage
ment ; as if our obUgation to obey his wUl depended upon our
own pleasure.
" If one engage to serve another, he does not set it down ex
pressly and pEirticularly among the terms and conditions of the
bargain, that he wUl not betiay nor murder him, nor pUlage nor
burn his house. For the same reason, that would be a dishonor
able engagement, in which men should bind themselves to act
properly and decently, and not break the peace." *
* Law of Nature and Nations, Book II. cap. 2, ^ 11,

The Revolution in Greece 69
Such were the sentiments of that eminent writer. How
nearly he had anticipated the case of the Holy Affiance wiU
appear from the preamble to that aUiance. After stating that
the affied sovereigns had become persuaded, by the events of the
last three years, that " their relations with each other ought to be
regulated exclusively by the subUme tiuths taught by the eternal
religion of God the Saviour," they solemnly declare their fixed
resolution " to adopt as the sole rule of their conduct, both in the
administiation of their respective states, and in their poUtical
relations with every other government, the precepts of that holy
reUgion, namely, the precepts of justice, charity, and peace,
which, far from being appUcable to private Ufe alone, ought,
on the contiary, to have a direct influence upon the counsels of
princes, and guide aU their steps, as being the only means of
consoUdating human institutions, and remedying their imper
fections." *
This measure, however, appears principaUy important, as it
was the first of a series, and was foUowed afterwards by others
of a more marked and practical nature. These measures, taken
together, ^.profess to estabUsh two principles, which the AlUed
Powers would intioduce as a part of the law of the civiUzed
world ; and the estabUshment of which is to be enforced by a
miffion and a half of bayonets.
The first of these principles is, that aU popular or constitutional
rights are held no othenvise than as grants from the crown.
Society, upon this principle, has no rights of its own ; it takes
good government, when it gets it, as a boon and a concession,
but can demand nothing. It is to Uve by that favor which ema
nates from royal authority, and if it have the misfortune to lose
that favor, there is nothing to protect it against any degree of
injustice and oppression. It can rightfuUy make no endeavor
for a change, by itself; its whole privUege is to receive the favors
that may be dispensed by the sovereign power, and aU its duty
is described in the single word submission. This is the plain
result of the principal Continental state papers ; indeed, it is
nearly the identical text of some of them.
; The circular despatch addressed by the sovereigns assembled
at Laybach, in the spring of 1821, to their ministers at foreign
courts, aUeges, " that useful and necessary changes in legislation
* Martens, Recueil des Traites, Tome XIII. p. 656.

70 Speeches in Congress
and in the administiation of states ought only to emanate from
the free wiU and intelUgent and weU-weighed conviction of
those whom Goa nas rendered responsible for power. AU that
deviates from this Une necessarily leads to disorder, commotions,
and evUs far more insufferable than those which they pretend to
remedy." * Now, Sir, ^his principle would carry Europe back
again, at once, into tlie middle of the Dark Ages. It is the old
doctiine of the Divine right of kings, advanced now by new
advocates, and sustained by a formidable array of power. That
the people hold their fundamental privUeges as matter of con
cession or indiUgence from the sovereign power, is a sentiment
not easy to be diifused in this age, any farther than it is enforced
by the direct operation of mUitary means. | It is tiue, certainly,
that some six centuries ago the early founders of English Ub
erty caUed the instrument which secured their rights a charter.
It was, indeed, a concession; they had obtained it sword in
hand from the king ; and in many other cases, whatever was ob
tained, favorable to human rights, from the tyranny and despot
ism of the feudal sovereigns, was caUed by the names of privi
leges and liberties, as being matter of special favor. Though
we retain this language at the present time, the principle itself
belongs to ages that have long passed by us. The civiUzed
world has done with " the enormous faith, of many made for
one." Society asserts its own rights, and aUeges them to be
original, sacred, and unaUenable. It is not satisfied with having
Idnd masters ; it demands a participation in its own govern
ment ; and in states much advanced in civffization, it urges this
demand with a constancy and an energy that cannot weU nor
long be resisted. There are, happUy, enough of regulated gov
ernments in the world, and those among the most distinguished,
to operate as constant examples, and to keep alive an unceasing
panting in the bosoms of men for the enjoyment of simUar free
uistitutions. When the EngUsh Revolution of 1688 took place, the Eng
Ush people did not content themselves with the example of
Runnymede ; they did not build their hopes upon royal charters ;
they did not, Uke the authors of the Laybach circular, suppose
that all useful changes in constitutions and laws must proceed
from those only whom God has rendered responsible for power.
* Annual Register for 1821, p. 601.

The Revolution in Greece 71
They were somewhat better instructed in the principles of civil
liberty, or at least they were better lovers of those principles
than the sovereigns of Laybach. Instead of petitioning for
charters, they declared their rights, and whUe they offered to the
Prince of Orange the crown with one hand, they held in the
other an enumeration of those privUeges which they did not
profess to hold as favors, but which they demanded and insisted
upon as their undoubted rights.
I need not stop to observe, Mr. Chairman, how totaUy hostUe
are these doctiines of Laybach to the fundamental principles of
our government. They are in direct contradiction ; the princi
ples of good and evU are hardly more opposite. K these prin
ciples of the sovereigns be true, we are but in a state of rebel-
Uon or of anarchy, and are only tolerated among civiUzed states
because it has not yet been convenient to reduce us to the tiue
standard. '
But the second, and, if possible, the stUl more objectionable
principle, avowed in these papers, is the right of forcible inter
ference in the affairs of other states. A right to contiol nations
in their desire to change their own government, wherever it may
be conjectured, or pretended, that such change might furnish an
example to the subjects of other states, is plainly and distinctly
asserted. The same Congress that made the declaration at
Laybach had declared, before its removal from Troppau, " that
the powers have an undoubted right to take a hostUe attitude in
regard to those states in which the overthrow of the government
may operate as an example."
There cannot, as I think, be conceived a more flagrant viola
tion of pubUc law, or national independence, than is contained
in this short declaration.
No matter what be the character of the government resisted ;
no matter with what weight the foot of the oppressor bears on
the neck of the oppressed ; if he struggle, or if he complain, he
sets a dangerous example of resistance, — and from that mo
ment he becomes an object of hostility to the most powerful
potentates of the earth. I want words to express my abhorrence
of this abominable principle. I trust every enlightened man
throughout the world will oppose it, and that, especiaUy, those
who, like ourselves, are fortunately out of the reach of the bay
onets that enforce it, will proclaim their detestation of it, in a

72 Speeches in Congress
tone both loud and decisive. The avowed object of such decla
rations is to preserve the peace of the world. But by what
means is it proposed to preserve this peace ? Simply, by bring
ing the power of all governments to bear against aU subjects.
Here is to be estabUshed a sort of double, or tieble, or quadru
ple, or, for aught I know, quintuple aUegiance. An offence
against one king is to be an offence against aU kings, and the
power of aU is to be put forth for the purushment of the offend
er. A right to interfere in extieme cases, in the case of contig
uous states, and where imminent danger is threatened to one
by what is occurring in another, is not without precedent in
modern times, upon what has been called the law of vicinage ;
and when confined to extieme cases, and Umited to a certain
extent, it may perhaps be defended upon principles of neces
sity and self-defence. But to maintain that sovereigns may
go to war upon the subjects of another state to repress an exam
ple, is monstious indeed. What is to be the Umit to such a
principle, or to the practice growing out of it ? What, in any
case, but sovereign pleasure, is to decide whether the example be
good or bad ? And what, under the operation of such a rule,
may be thought of our example ? Why are we not as fair
objects for the operation of the new principle, as any of those
who may attempt a reform of government on the other side of
the Atlantic?
The ultimate effect of this alliance of sovereigns, for objects
personal to themselves, or respecting only the permanence of
their own power, must be the destruction of aU just feeUng, and
aU natural sympathy, between those who exercise the power of
government and those who are subject to it. The old channels
of mutual regard and confidence are to be dried up, or cut off.
Obedience can now be expected no longer than it is enforced.
Instead of relying on the affections of the governed, sovereigns
are to rely on the affections and friendship of other sovereigns.
There are, in short, no longer to be nations. Princes and people
are no longer to unite for interests common to them both. There
is to be an end of aU patriotism, as a distinct national feeUng.
Society is to be divided horizontally ; all sovereigns above, and
aU subjects below ; the former coalescing for their own security,
and for the more certain subjection of the undistinguished mul
titude beneath. This, Sir, is no picture drawn by imagination.

The Revolution in Greece 73
T have hardly used language stronger than that in which the
authors of this new system have commented on their own work.
M. de Chateaubriand, in his speech in the French Chamber of
Deputies, in February last, declared, that he had a conference
with the Emperor of Russia at Verona, in which that august
sovereign uttered sentiments which appeared to him so precious,
that he immediately hastened home, and wrote them down whUe
yet fresh in his recoUection. " The Emperor declared," said he,
" that there can no longer be such a thing as an English, French,
Russian, Prussian, or Austiian policy ; there is henceforth but
one policy, which, for the safety of all, should be adopted both
by people and kings. It was for me first to show myself con
vinced of the principles upon which I founded the affiance ; an
occasion offered itself, — the rising in Greece. Nothing certainly
could occur more for my interests, for the interests of my peo
ple; notffing more acceptable to my country, than a religious
war in Turkey. But I have thought I perceived in the tioubles
of the Morea the sign of revolution, and I have held back.
Providence has not put under my command eight hundred
thousand soldiers to satisfy my ambition, but to protect relig
ion, moraUty, and justice, and to secure the prevalence of those
principles of order on which human society rests. It may weU
be permitted, that kings may have pubUc affiances to defend
themselves against secret enemies."
These, Sir, are the words which the French minister thought
so important that they deserved to be recorded; and I, too.
Sir, am of the same opinion. But if it be true that there is
hereafter to be neither a Russian poUcy, nor a Prussian poUcy,
nor an Austrian poUcy, nor a French poUcy, nor even, which yet
I wUl not beUeve, an EngUsh poUcy, there wUl be, I trust in
God, an American poUcy. If the authority of all these govern
ments be hereafter to be mixed and blended, and to flow, in one
augmented ctirrent of prerogative, over the face of Europe,
sweeping away aU resistance in its course, it will yet remain for
us to secure our own happiness by the preservation of otir own
principles ; which I hope we shaU have the manUness to express
on all proper occasions, and the spirit to defend in every extiem
ity. The end and scope of this amalgamated poUcy are neither
more nor less than this, to interfere, by force, for any govern
ment, against any people who may resist it. Be the state of the

74 Speeches in Congress
people what it may, they shall not rise ; be the government
what it wffi, it shsdl not be opposed.
The practical commentary has corresponded with the plain
language of the text. Look at Spain, and at Greece. If men
may not resist the Spanish Inquisition, and the Turkish cimeter,
what is there to which humanity must not submit ? Stionger
cases can never arise. Is it not proper for us, at aU times, is it
not our duty, at this time, to come forth, and deny, and con
demn, these monstious principles ? Where, but here, and in one
other place, are they likely to be resisted ? They are advanced
with equal coolness and boldness ; and they are supported by
immense power. The timid wiU shrink and give way, and many
of the brave may be compeUed to yield to force. Human Uberty
may yet, perhaps, be obUged to repose its principal hopes on the
inteffigence and the vigor of the Saxon race. As far as depends
on us, at least, I trust those hopes wffi not be disappointed ; and
that, to the extent which may consist with our own settled, pa
cffic poUcy, our opinions and sentiments may be brought to act
on the right side, and to the right end, on an occasion which is,
in tiuth, nothing less than a momentous question between an
intelUgent age, fuU of knowledge, thirsting for improvement,
and quickened by a thousand impulses, on one side, and the
most arbitiary pretensions, sustained by unprecedented power,
on the other.
This asserted right of forcible intervention in the affairs of
other nations is in open violation of the pubUc law of the world.
Who has authorized these learned doctors of Troppau to estab
Ush new articles in this code ? Whence are their diplomas ? Is
the whole world expected to acquiesce in principles which en
tirely subvert the independence of nations ? On the basis of
this independence has been reared the beautiful fabric of inter
national law. On the principle of this independence, Europe
has seen a famUy of nations flom-ishing within its Umits, the
smaU among the large, protected not always by power, but by a
principle above power, by a sense of propriety and justice. On
this principle, the great commonwealth of civUized states has
been hitherto upheld. There have been occasional departures
or violations, and always disastrous, as in the case of Poland ;
but, in general, the harmony of the system has been wonderfuUy
preserved. In the production and preservation of this sense of

The Revolution in Greece fs
justice, this predominating principle, the Christian religion has
acted a main part. Christianity and civiUzation have labored
together ; it seems, indeed, to be a law of our human condition,
that they can Uve and flourish only together. ( From their blend
ed influence has arisen that deUghtful spectacle of the prevalence
of reason and principle over power and interest, so weU described
by one who was an honor to the age ; —
" And sovereign Law, the state's collected will,
O'er thrones and globes elate,
Sits empress, — crowning good, repressing ill :
Smit by her sacred frown,
The fiend, Discretion, like a vapor, sinks.
And e'en the all-dazzling crown
Hides his faint rays, and at her bidding shrinks."
But this vision is past. WhUe the teachers of Laybach give
the rule, there wffi be no law but the law of the strongest. ;
It may now be required of me to show what interest we have
in resisting tffis new system. What is it to us, it may be asked,
upon what principles, or what pretences, the European govern
ments assert a right of interfering in the affairs of their neigh
bors ? The thunder, it may be said, roUs at a distance. The
wide Atiantic is between us and danger; and, however others
may suffer, we shaU remain safe.
I think it is a sufficient answer to tffis to say, that we are one
of the nations of the earth ; that we have an interest, therefore,
in the preservation of that system of national law and national
intercourse which has heretofore subsisted, so beneficiaUy for aU.
Our system of government, it shordd also be remembered, is,
throughout, founded on principles utterly hostUe to the new
code ; and if we remain undisturbed by its operation, we shaU
owe our security either to our situation or our spirit. The en
terprising character of the age, our own active, commercial spirit,
the great increase which has taken place in the intercourse
among civffized and commercial states, have necessarUy con
nected us with other nations, and given us a high concern in the
preservation of those salutary principles upon which that inter
course is founded. We have as clear an interest in international
law, as mffividuals have in the laws of society.
But apart from the soundness of the poUcy, on the ground
of direct interest, we have. Sir, a duty connected with this

76 Speeches in Congress
subject, which I tiust we are wUUng to perform. What do ive
not owe to the cause of civU and reUgious liberty ? to the prin
ciple of lawful resistance ? to the principle that society has a
right to partake in its own government? As the leading re
pubUc of the world, living and breatffing in these principles, and
advanced, by their operation, with unequalled rapidity in our
career, shaU we give our consent to bring them into disrepute
and disgrace? It is neither ostentation nor boasting to say,
that there Ues before this countiy, in immediate prospect, a great
extent and height of power. We are borne along towards this,
without effort, and not always even with a fuU knowledge of the
rapidity of our own motion. Circumstances which never com
bined before have cooperated in our favor, and a mighty current
is setting us forward which we could not resist even if we would,
and which, whUe we would stop to make an observation, and
take the sun, has set us, at the end of the operation, far in ad
vance of the place where we commenced it. Does it not be
come us, then, is it not a duty imposed on us, to give our weight
to the side of liberty and justice, to let mankind know that we
are not tired of our own institutions, and to protest against the
asserted power of altering at pleasure the law of the civffized
worid ?
But whatever we do in this respect, it becomes us to do upon
clear and consistent principles. There is an important topic in
the message to which I have yet hardly aUuded. I mean the
rumored combination of the European Continental sovereigns
against the newly estabUshed free states of South America.
Whatever position this government may take on that subject, I
trust it wffi be one which can be defended on known and ac
knowledged grounds of right. The near approach or the remote
distance of danger may affect poUcy, but cannot change princi
ple. The same reason that w^ould authorize us to protest against
unwarrantable combmations to interfere between Spain and her
former colonies, would authorize us equally to protest, if the
same combination were directed against the smallest state in
Europe, although our duty to ourselves, our poUcy, and wisdom,
might indicate very different courses as fit to be pursued by us
in the two cases. We shaU not, I tiust, act upon the notion of
ffiviffing the world with the Holy Affiance, and complain of
nothmg done by them in their hemisphere if thev wiU not inter-

The Revolution in Greece jj
fere with ours. At least this would not be such a course of
policy as I could recommend or support. We have not offended,
and I hope we do not intend to offend, in regard to South
America, against any principle of national mdependence or of
public law. We have done nothing, we shaU do nothing, that
we need to hush up or to compromise by forbearing to ex
press our sympathy for the cause of the Greeks, or our opinion
of the course which other governments have adopted in regard
to them.
It may, in the next place, be asked, perhaps. Supposing aU this
to be tiue, what can we do ? Are we to go to war ? Are we
to interfere in the Greek cause, or any other European cause ?
Are we to endanger our pacffic relations ? No, certainly not.
What, then, the question recurs, remains for us ? If we wffi not
endanger our own peace, if we wiU neither furmsh armies nor
navies to the cause wMch we think the just one, what is there
withm our power?
Sir, tffis reasoning imstakes the age. The time has been, in
deed, when fleets, and amues, and subsidies, were the principal
reUances even in the best cause. But, happUy for manldnd,
a great change has taken place in this respect. Moral causes
come into consideration, in proportion as the progress of knowl
edge is advanced ; and the pubUc opinion of the civffized world
is rapidly gaining an ascendency over mere brutal force. It is
already able to oppose the most formidable obstruction to the
progress of injustice and oppression ; and as it grows more in
teffigent and more intense, it wffi be more and more formidable.
It may be sUenced by mffitary power, but it cannot be con
quered. It is elastic, irrepressible, and invulnerable to the weap
ons of orffinary warfare. It is that impassible, unextinguishable
enemy of mere violence and arbitrary rule, which, like MUton's
angels, " Vital in every part 
Cannot, but by annihilating, die."
UntU tffis be propitiated or satisfied, it is vain for power to
talk either of triumphs or of repose. No matter what fields are
desolated, what fortiesses surrendered, what armies subdued, or
what provinces overrun. In the history of the year that has
passed by us, and in the mstance of unhappy Spam, we have
seen the vanity of aU triumphs in a cause which violates the

78 Speeches in Congress
general sense of justice of the civffized world. It is nothing,
that the tioops of France have passed from the Pyrenees to
Cadiz ; it is notffing that an unhappy and prostiate nation has
fallen before them ; it is nothing that arrests, and confiscation,
and execution, sweep away the littie remnant of national resist
ance. There is an enemy that stffi exists to check the glory of
these tiiumphs. It foUows the conqueror back to the very scene
of his ovations ; it calls upon him to take notice that Europe,
though sUent, is yet indignant ; it shows him that the sceptie of
his victory is a barren sceptie ; that it shall confer neither joy
nor honor, but shall moulder to dry ashes in his grasp. In
the midst of ffis exultation, it pierces his ear with the cry of
mjured justice ; it denounces against him the mdignation of
an enUghtened and civffized age; it turns to bitterness the
cup of his rejoicing, and wounds Mm with the sting which be
longs to the consciousness of having outiaged the opinion of
mankind. In my opinion. Sir, the Spanish nation is now nearer, not
only in point of time, but in point of circumstance, to the ac
qmsition of a regulated government, than at the moment of
the French invasion. Nations must, no doubt, undergo these
tiials in their progress to the estabUshment of free mstitu-
tions. The very tiials benefit them, and render them more
capable both of obtaining and of enjoying the object which
they seek.
I shaU not detain the committee. Sir, by laying before it any
statistical, geographical, or commercial, account of Greece. I
have no knowledge on these subjects which is not common to
all. It is universaUy admitted, that, within the last thirty or
forty years, the conffition of Greece has been greatly improved.
Her marine is at present respectable, contaimng the best saUors
in the Meffiterranean, better even, in that sea, than our own, as
more accustomed to the long quarantuies and other regulations
which prevail in its ports. The number of her seamen has been
estimated as ffigh as 50,000, but I suppose that estimate must
be much too large. She has, probably, 150,000 tons of ship
ping. It is not easy to ascertain the amount of the Greek
popffiation. The Turkish government does not tiouble itself
with any of the calculations of poUtical economy, and there has
never been such a thing as an accurate census, probably, in any

The Revolution in Greece 79
part of the Turkish empire. In the absence of aU official infor
mation, private opinions widely differ. By the tables wffich
have been communicated, it would seem that there are 2,400,000
Greeks in Greece proper and the islands ; an amount, as I am
inclined to think, somewhat overrated. There are, probably, in
the whole of European Turkey, 5,000,000 Greeks, and 2,000,000
more in the Asiatic dominions of that power.
The moral and inteUectual progress of this numerous popula
tion, imder the honible oppression which crushes it, has been
such as may weU excite regard. Slaves, under barbarous mas
ters, the Greeks have stiU aspired after the blessings of knowl
edge and civilization. Before the breaking out of the present
revolution, they had estabUshed schools, and coUeges, and Ubra-
ries, and the press. Wherever, as in Scio, owing to particular
circumstances, the weight of oppression was mitigated, the nat
ural vivacity of the Greeks, and their aptitude for the arts, were
evmced. Though certaiffiy not on an equaUty with the civU
ized and Christian states of Europe, — and how is it possible,
under such oppression as they endmred, that they shoffid be ? —
they yet furmshed a strildng contiast with their Tartar masters.
It has been well said, that it is not easy to form a just concep
tion of the nature of the despotism exercised over them. Con
quest and subjugation, as known among European states, are
inadequate modes of expression by which to denote the domin
ion of the Turks. A conquest m the civUized world is generaUy
no more than an acquisition of a new dominion to the conquer
ing countiy. It does not imply a never-ending bondage imposed
upon the conquered, a perpetual mark, — an opprobrious distinc
tion between them and their masters; a bitter and unenffing
persecution of their reUgion ; an habitual violation of their rights
of person and property, and the unrestiained indulgence towards
them of every passion which belongs to the character of a bar
barous soldiery. Yet such is the state of Greece. The Otto
man power over them, obtained originally by the sword, is
constantly preserved by the same means. Wherever it exists, it
is a mere mffitary power. The reUgious and civU code of the
state being both fixed in the Koran, and equaUy the object of
an ignorant and furious faith, have been found equally incapable
of change. " The Turk," it has been said, " has been encamped
in Europe for four centuries." He has hardly any more partici-

8o Speeches in Congress
pation in European manners, knowledge, and arts, than when
he crossed the Bosphorus. But this is not the worst. The
power of the empire is faUen into anarchy, and as the principle
wffich belongs to the head belongs also to the parts, there are as
many despots as there are pachas, beys, and viziers. Wars are
almost perpetual between the Sultan and some rebeffious gov
ernor of a province ; and in the conffict of these despotisms, the
people are necessarily ground between the upper and the nether
miUstone. In short, the Christian subjects of the SubUme Porte
feel daily aU the miseries which flow from despotism, from an
archy, from slavery, and from reUgious persecution. If any
thing yet remains to heighten such a picture, let it be added,
that every office in the government is not only actuaUy, but pro
fessedly, venal ; the pachaUcs, the vizierates, the caffisffips, and
whatsoever other denomination may denote the depositary of
power. In the whole world. Sir, there is no such oppression
felt as by the Christian Greeks. In various parts of India, to
be sure, the government is bad enough ; but then it is the gov
ernment of barbarians over barbarians, and the feeUng of oppres
sion is, of course, not so keen. There the oppressed are perhaps
not better than their oppressors ; but in the case of Greece, there
are miUions of Christian men, not without knowledge, not with
out refinement, not without a stiong thirst for aU the pleasures
of civffized Ufe, tiampled into the very earth, century after cen
tury, by a pffiaging, savage, relentless soldiery. Sir, the case is
unique. There exists, and has existed, nothing like it. The
world has no such misery to show ; there is no case in which
Christian communities can be called upon with such emphasis
of appeal.
But I have said enough, Mr. Chairman, indeed I need have
said nothing, to satisfy the House, that it must be some new
combination of circumstances, or new views of policy in the cab
inets of Europe, which have caused tffis interesting struggle not
merely to be regarded with indifference, but to be marked with
opprobrium. The very statement of the case, as a contest be-
t\veen the Turks and Greeks, sufficiently infficates what must be
the feeling of every individual, and every government, that is
not biased by a particular interest, or a particular feeUng, to
disregard the dictates of justice and humanity.
And now. Sir, what has been the conduct pursued by the Al-

The Revolution in Greece 8i
lied Powers in regard to this contest ? When the revolution
broke out, the sovereigns were assembled in congress at Lay
bach; and the papers of that assembly sufficiently manifest
their sentiments. They proclaimed their abhorrence of those
" criminal combmations which had been formed in the east
ern parts of Emrope " ; and, although it is possible that this
denunciation was aimed, more particularly, at the disturbances
in the provinces of WaUachia and Moldavia, yet no exception is
made, from its general terms, in favor of those events in Greece
which were properly the commencement of her revolution, and
which could not but be well known at Laybach, before the date
of these declarations. Now it must be remembered, that Rus
sia was a leaffing party in this denunciation of the efforts of the
Greeks to achieve their Uberation ; and it cannot but be expected
by Russia^ that the world should also remember what part she
herself has heretofore acted in the same concern. It is notori
ous, that withm the last half-century she has again and again
excited the Greeks to rebeffion against the Porte, and that she
has constantly kept aUve in them the hope that she woffid, one
day, by her own great power, break the yoke of their oppressor.
Indeed, the earnest attention with which Russia has regarded
Greece goes much farther back than to the time I have men
tioned. Ivan the Third, in 1482, having espoused a Grecian
princess, heiress of the last Greek Emperor, discarded St. George
from the Russian arms, and adopted the Greek two-headed
black eagle, which has continued in the Russian arms to the
present day. In virtue of the same marriage, the Russian prin
ces claim the Greek throne as their inheritance.
Under Peter the Great, the poUcy of Russia developed itself
more fuUy. In 1696, he rendered himself master of Azof, and
m 1698, obtained the right to pass the DardaneUes, and to main
tain, by that route, commercial intercourse with the Mediter
ranean. He had emissaries throughout Greece, and particularly
appUed himself to gain the clergy. He adopted the Labanrum
of Constantme, " In hoc signo vinces " ; and medals were stiuck,
with the inscription, " Petrus I. Russo-Grsecorum Imperator."
In whatever new direction the principles of the Holy Alliance
may now lead the poUtics of Russia, or whatever course she
may suppose Christianity now prescribes to her, in regard to the
Greek cause, the time has been when she professed to be con-
VOL. V. — 5

82 Speeches in Congress
tending for that cause, as identffied with Christianity. The
white banner under which the soldiers of Peter the First usually
fought, bore, as its inscription, " In the name of the Prince, and
for our countiy." Relying on the aid of the Greeks, in his war
with the Porte, he changed the white flag to red, and ffisplayed
on it the words, " In the name of God, and for Christianity."
The unfortunate issue of this war is well known. Though
Anne and EUzabeth, the successors of Peter, did not possess
his active character, they kept up a constant communication
with Greece, and held out hopes of restoring the Greek empire.
Catharine the Second, as is well known, excited a general revolt
in 1769. A Russian fleet appeared in the Meffiterranean, and a
Russian army was landed in the Morea. The Greeks in the
end were disgusted at being expected to take an oath of aUe
giance to Russia, and the Empress was ffisgusted because they
refused to take it. In 1774, peace was signed between Russia
and the Porte, and the Greeks of the Morea were left to their
fate. By this treaty the Porte acknowledged the independence
of the khan of the Crimea ; a preUminary step to the acqmsition
of that countiy by Russia. It is not unworthy of remark, as a
circumstance which ffistingmshed this from most other ffiplo-
matic tiansactions, that it conceded to the cabinet of St. Peters
burg the right of intervention in the interior affairs of Turkey,
in regard to whatever concerned the reUgion of the Greeks.
The cruelties and massacres that happened to the Greeks after
the peace between Russia and the Porte, notwithstanding the
general pardon which had been stipffiated for them, need not
now be recited. Instead of retiacing the deplorable picture, it is
enough to say, that in tffis respect the past is justly reflected in
the present. The Empress soon after invaded and conquered the
Crimea, and on one of the gates of Kerson, its capital, caused to
be inscribed, " The road to Byzantium." The present Emperor,
on ffis accession to the throne, maffifested an intention to adopt
the policy of Catharine the Second as his own, and the world
has not been right in aU its suspicions, if a project for the parti
tion of Turkey ffid not form a part of the negotiations of Napo
leon and Alexander at TUsit.
AU this course of poUcy seems suddeffiy to be changed. Tur
key is no longer regarded, it would appear, as an object of parti
tion or acquisition, and Greek revolts have aU at once become,

The Revolution in Greece 83
according to the declaration of Laybach, " criminal combina
tions." The recent congress at Verona exceeded its predeces
sor at Laybach m its denunciations of the Greek stiuggle. In
the circffiar of the 14th of December, 1822, it declared the Gre
cian resistance to the Turkish power to be rash and cffipable,
and lamented that " the ffiebrand of rebeUion had been thrown
mto the Ottoman empire." This rebuke and crimination we
know to have proceeded on those settled principles of conduct
which the Continental powers had prescribed for themselves.
The sovereigns saw, as well as others, the real condition of the
Greeks ; they knew as weU as others that it was most natural
and most justifiable, that they shoffid endeavor, at whatever
hazard, to change that condition. They knew that they them
selves, or at least one of them, had more than once urged the
Greeks to simUar efforts ; that they themselves had thrown the
same ffiebrand into the midst of the Ottoman empire. And
yet, so much does it seem to be their fixed object to discounte
nance whatsoever threatens to ffisturb the actual government of
any country, that. Christians as they were, and affied, as they
professed to be, for purposes most important to human happi
ness and reUgion, they have not hesitated to declare to the
w^orld that they have whoUy forborne to exercise any compas
sion to the Greeks, simply because they thought that they saw,
in the struggles of the Morea, the sign of revolution. This,
then, is coming to a plam, practical resffit. The Grecian revo
lution has been discouraged, discountenanced, and denounced,
solely because it is a revolution. Independent of aU inquiry mto
the reasonableness of its causes or the enormity of the oppres
sion which produced it ; regardless of the pecuUar claims wffich
Greece possesses upon the civffized world; and regardless of
what has been their own conduct towards her for a century ; re
gardless of the interest of the Christian reUgion, — the sover
eigns at Verona seized upon the case of the Greek revolution
as one above aU others calculated to ffiustiate the fixed princi
ples of their poUcy. The abominable rffie of the Porte on one
side, the value and the sufferings of the Christian Greeks on the
other, furmshed a case Ukely to convince even an mcredffious
world of the smcerity of the professions of the Affied Powers.
They embraced the occasion with apparent ardor; and the
world, I trust, is satisfied.

84 Speeches in Congress
We see here, Mr. Chairman, the direct and actual appUcation
of that system which I have attempted to describe. We see it
in the very case of Greece. We learn, authenticaUy and indis
putably, that the Allied Powers, holdmg that all changes in leg
islation and administiation ought to proceed from kings alone,
were whoUy inexorable to the sufferings of the Greeks, and en
tirely hostUe to their success. Now it is upon this practical re
sult of the principle of the Continental powers that I wish this
House to intimate its opiffion. The great question is a question
of principle. Greece is only the signal instance of the appUca
tion of that principle. K the principle be right, if we esteem it
conformable to the law of nations, if we have nothing to say
against it, or if we deem ourselves unfit to express an opinion
on the subject, then, of course, no resolution ought to pass. If,
on the other hand, we see in the declarations of the Affied Pow
ers prmciples not only utterly hostUe to our own free institu
tions, but hostUe also to the independence of all nations, and al
together opposed to the improvement of the condition of human
nature ; if, in the instance before us, we see a most stiikmg ex
position and appUcation of those principles, and if we deem
our opinions to be entitled to any weight in the estimation of
mankind, — then I think it is our duty to adopt some such
measure as the proposed resolution.
It is worthy of observation. Sir, that as early as Jffiy, 1821,
Baron Stiogonoff, the Russian minister at Constantinople, rep
resented to the Porte, that, if the undistingmshed massacres of
the Greeks, both of such as were m open resistance and of those
who remained patient ffi their submission were continued, and
shoffid become a settled habit, they would give just cause of
war agamst the Porte to all Christian states. Tffis was in
1821.* It was followed, early in the next year, by that inde
scribable enormity, that appaffing monument of barbarian cru
elty, the destiuction of Scio ; a scene I shall not attempt to de
scribe ; a scene from which human nature shrinks shuddering
away ; a scene having hardly a paraUel in the history of faUen
man. This scene, too, was quickly foUowed by the massacres
m Cyprus ; and aU these things were perfectly known to the
Christian powers assembled at Verona. Yet these powers, in-
• Annual Register for 1821, p. 251.

The Revolution in Greece 85
stead of acting upon the case supposed by Baron Stiogonoff
and which one would think had been then fuUy made out, —
instead of being moved by any compassion for the sufferings of
the Greeks, — these powers, these Christian powers, rebuke their
gaUantiy and insffit their sufferings by accusing them of " throw
ing a ffiebrand into the Ottoman empire." Such, Sir, appear to
me to be the prmciples on which the Continental powers of Eu
rope have agreed hereafter to act ; and this, an eminent instance
of the application of those principles.
I shaU not detsdn the committee, Mr. Chairman, by any at
tempt to recite the events of the Greek struggle up to the pres
ent time. Its origin may be found, doubtless, in that improved
state of knowledge which, for some years, has been graduaUy
t-aldng place m that countiy. The emancipation of the Greeks
has been a subject frequently ffiscussed in modern times. They
themselves Eire represented as having a vivid remembrance of the
ffistinction of their ancestors, not unmixed with an mdignant
feeUng that civilized and Cffiistian Europe shoffid not ere now
have aided them m breaking their intolerable fetters.
In 1816 a society was founded in Vienna for the encourage
ment of Grecian Uterature. It was connected with a similar in
stitution at Athens, and another in Thessaly, caUed the " Gym
nasium of Mount PeUon." The tieasury and general office of
the institution were estabUshed at Munich. No poUtical object
was avowed by these institutions, probably none contemplated.
Stffi, however, they had their effect, no doubt, in hastening
that conffition of thmgs in which the Greeks felt competent to
the estabUshment of their independence. Many young men
have been for years annuaUy sent to the universities in the west
ern states of Europe for their education ; and, after the generffi
pacffication of Europe, many mffitary men, ffischarged from
other employment, were ready to enter even into so unpromis
ing a service as that of the revolutionary Greeks.
In 1820, war commenced between the Porte and Ali, the weU-
known Pacha of Albania. Differences existed also with Persia
and with Russia. In this state of things, at the beginning of
1821, an insurrection broke out in Moldavia, under the ffirection
of Alexander Ypsilanti, a weU-educated soldier, who had been
major-general in the Russian service. From his character, and
the number of those who seemed incUned to join him, he was

86 Speeches in Congress
supposed to be countenanced by the court of St. Petersburg
This, however, was a great mistake, wffich the Emperor, then at
Laybach, took an early opportunity to rectify. The Turkish
government was alarmed at these occurrences in the northern
provinces of European Turkey, and caused search to be made
of aU vessels entering the Black Sea, lest arms or other mffitary
means shoffid be sent in that manner to the insurgents. This
proved inconveffient to the commerce of Russia, and caused
some unsatisfactory correspondence between the two powers.
It may be worthy of remark, as an exhibition of national char
acter, that, agitated by these appearances of intestine commo
tion, the Sultan issued a proclamation, caUing on aU tiue Mus-
sffimans to renounce the pleasures of social Ufe, to prepare arms
and horses, and to return to the manner of their ancestors, the
Ufe of the plains. The Turk seems to have thought that he
had, at last, caught somethmg of the dangerous contagion of
European civilization, and that it was necessary to reform his
habits, by recm'ring to the original manners of miUtary roving
barbarians. It was about this time, that is to say, at the commencement
of 1821, that the revolution burst out in various parts of Greece
and the isles. Circumstances, certaiffiy, were not unfavorable
to the movement, as one portion of the Turkish army was em
ployed m the war against Ali Pacha in Albania, and another
part in the provinces north of the Danube. The Greeks soon
possessed themselves of the open countiy of the Morea, and
drove their enemy into the fortiesses. Of these, that of Tripo-
Utza, with the city, feU into their hands, in the course of the
summer. Having after these ffist movements obtained time to
breathe, it became, of course, an early object to estabUsh a gov
ernment. For this purpose delegates of the people assembled,
under that name wffich describes the assembly in which we our
selves sit, that name which " freed the Atlantic," a Congress. A
writer, who undertakes to render to the civUized world that ser
vice which was once performed by Edmund Burke, I mean the
compUer of the EngUsh Annual Register, asks, by what author
ity this assembly coffid call itself a Congress. Simply, Sir, by
the same authority by which the people of the United States
have given the same name to their own legislature. We, at
least, shoffid be naturaUy inclined to think, not only as far as

The Revolution in Greece 87
names, but things also, are concerned, that the Greeks coffid
harcUy have begun their revolution under better auspices ; since
they have endeavored to render appUcable to themselves the gen
eral principles of our form of government, as weU as its name.
Tffis constitution went into operation at the commencement of
the next year. In the mean time, the war with AU Pacha was
ended, he havffig surrendered, and being afterwards assassffiated,
by an instance of tieachery and perfidy, which, if it had happened
elsewhere than under the government of the Turks, would have
deserved notice. The negotiation with Russia, too, took a turn
unfavorable to the Greeks. The great point upon which Russia
insisted, beside the abandonment of the measure of searching
vessels bound to the Black Sea, was, that the Porte shoffid with
draw its armies from the neighborhood of the Russian frontiers ;
and the immediate consequence of this, when effected, was to
add so much more to the ffisposable force ready to be employed
against the Greeks. These events seemed to have left the whole
force of the Ottoman empire, at the commencement of 1822,
in a condition to be employed against the Greek rebeUion ;
and, accorffingly, very many anticipated the immediate destiuc
tion of the cause. The event, however, was ordered otherwise.
Where the greatest effort was made, it was met and defeated.
Enterffig the Morea with an army which seemed capable of bear
ing down aU resistance, the Turks were nevertheless defeated
and driven back, and pursued beyond the isthmus, within which,
as far as it appears, from that time to the present, they have not
been able to set their foot.
It was ffi AprU of this year that the destruction of Scio took
place. That island, a sort of appanage of the Sultana mother,
enjoyed many privUeges pecffiiar to itself. In a popffiation of
130,000 or 140,000, it had no more than 2,000 or 3,000 Turks ;
indeed, by some accounts, not near as many. The absence of
these ruffian masters had in some degree allowed opportunity
for the promotion of knowledge, the accumffiation of wealth,
and the general cffitivation of society. Here was the seat of
modern Greek Uterature; here were libraries, printing-presses,
and other estabUshments, which infficate some advancement in
refinement and knowledge. Certain of the inhabitants of Sa-
mos, it woffid seem, envious of this comparative happiness of
Scio, landed upon the island in an irregular multitude, for the

88 Speeches in Congress
purpose of compeffing its inhabitants to make common cause
with their countiymen against their oppressors. These, being
joffied by the peasantiy, marched to the city and drove the
Turks mto the castle. The Turkish fleet, lately reinforced from
Egypt, happened to be in the neighboring seas, and, learffing
these events, landed a force on the island of fifteen thousand men.
There was nothing to resist such an army. These troops imme-
ffiately entered the city and began an indiscriminate massacre.
The city was fired ; and in four days the fire and sword of the
Turk rendered the beautiful Scio a clotted mass of blood and
ashes. The detaUs are too shocking to be recited. Forty thou
sand women and chUdren, unhappUy saved from the general des
tiuction, were afterwards sold in the market of Smyrna, and sent
off into ffistant and hopeless servitude. Even on the wharves of
our own cities, it has been said, have been sold the utensils of
those hearths which now exist no longer. Of the whole popu
lation which I have mentioned, not above nine hundred persons
were left Uving upon the island. I will only repeat. Sir, that
these tiagical scenes were as fuUy known at the Congress of
Verona, as they are now known to us ; and it is not too much
to call on the powers that constituted that congress, in the name
of conscience and in the name of humanity, to teU us if there
be nothing even in these unparaUeled excesses of Turkish bar
barity to excite a sentiment of compassion ; nothing which they
regard as so objectionable as even the very idea of popular re
sistance to power.
The events of the year which has just passed by, as far as
they have become known to us, have been even more favorable
to the Greeks than those of the year preceffing. I omit all de
taUs, as beffig as weU known to others as to myself. Suffice it
to say, that with no other enemy to contend with, and no diver
sion of his force to other objects, the Porte has not been able to
carry the war into the Morea ; and that, by the last accounts, its
armies were acting defensively in Thessaly. I pass over, also,
the naval engagements of the Greeks, although that is a mode
of warfare in wffich they are calcffiated to excel, and in which
they have already performed actions of such distingmshed skffi
and bravery, as woffid draw applause upon the best mariners in
the world. The present state of the war would seem to be, that
the Greeks possess the whole of the Morea, with the exception

The Revolution in Greece 89
of the three fortiesses of Patias, Coron, and Modon ; aU Canffia,
but one fortiess ; and most of the other islands. They possess
the citadel of Athens, Missolonghi, and several other places in
Lavaffia. They have been able to act on the offensive, and to
carry the war beyond the isthmus. There is no reason to be
Ueve their marffie is weakened ; more probably, it is stiength
ened. But, what is most important of aU, they have obtained
time and experience. They have awakened a sympathy
throughout Europe and throughout America; and they have
formed a government which seems suited to the emergency of
their conffition.
Sir, they have done much. It woffid be great injustice to
compare their achievements with our own. We began our
Revolution, already possessed of government, and, comparative
ly, of civU Uberty. Our ancestors had from the first been accus
tomed ffi a great measure to govern themselves. They were
famffiar with popffiar elections and legislative assemblies, and
weU acquainted with the general prmciples and practice of free
governments. They had Uttle else to do than to throw off the
paramount authority of the parent state. Enough was stffi left,
both of law and of organization, to conduct society in its accus
tomed course, and to uffite men together for a common object.
The Greeks, of course, coffid act with Uttle concert at the begin-
ffing ; they were unaccustomed to the exercise of power, without
experience, with Umited knowledge, without aid, and surround
ed by nations which, whatever claims the Greeks might seem
to have upon them, have afforded them nothing but discour
agement and reproach. They have held out, however, for three
campaigns; and that, at least, is sometffing. Constantinople
and the northern provffices have sent forth thousands of tioops ;
— they have been defeated. TripoU, and Algiers, and Egypt,
have contiibuted their marine contingents ; — they have not
kept the ocean. Hordes of Tartars have crossed the Bospho
rus; — they have ffied where the Persians ffied. The powerful
monarcffies in the neighborhood have denounced their cause
and admoffished them to abandon it and submit to their fate.
They have answered them, that, although two hundred thou
sand of their countiymen have offered up their lives, there yet
remain Uves to offer; and that it is the determination of all,
" yes, of ALL," to persevere until they shaU have estabUshed their

90 Speeches in Congress
Uberty, or until the power of their oppressors shaU have reUeved
them from the burden of existence. I
It may now be asked, perhaps, whether the expression of our
own sympathy, and that of the countiy, may do them good ? I
hope it may. It may give them courage and spirit, it may assure
them of public regard, teach them that they are not whoUy for
gotten by the civUized world, and inspire them with constancy
in the pursuit of their great end. At any rate. Sir, it appears to
me that the measure wffich I have proposed is due to our own
character, and caUed for by our own duty. When we shall
have discharged that duty, we may leave the rest to the ffispo-
sition of Providence.
I do not see how it can be doubted that this measure is en
tirely pacific. I profess my inabffity to perceive that it has any
possible tendency to involve our neutial relations. If the reso
lution pass, it is not of necessity to be immeffiately acted on.
It will not be acted on at aU, unless, in the opinion of the Pres
ident, a proper and safe occasion for acting upon it shaU arise.
If we adopt the resolution to-day, our relations with every for
eign state wffi be to-morrow precisely what they now are. The
resolution wffi be sufficient to express our sentiments on the
subjects to which I have adverted. Usefffi for that purpose, it
can be mischievous for no purpose. If the topic were properly
intioduced into the message, it cannot be improperly intioduced
mto ffiscussion in this House. If it were proper, which no one
doubts, for the President to express his opinions upon it, it can
not, I think, be improper for us to express ours. The only cer
tain effect of this resolution is to signify, in a form usual ffi
boffies constituted like this, our approbation of the general sen
timent of the message. Do we wish to withhold that approba
tion ? The resolution confers on the President no new power,
nor does it enjoin on him the exercise of any new duty ; nor
does it hasten him in the ffischarge of any existing duty.
I cannot imagine that this resolution can add any thing to
those excitements which it has been supposed, I think very
causelessly, might possibly provoke the Turkish government to
acts of hostffity. There is already the message, expressing the
hope of success to the Greeks and disaster to the Turks, in a
much stionger manner than is to be impUed from the terms of
this resolution. There is the correspondence between the Sec-

The Revolution in Greece

91

retary of State and the Greek Agent in London, already made
pubUc, in which simUar wishes are expressed, and a continuance
of the correspondence apparently invited. I might add to this,
the unexampled burst of feeUng which this cause has caUed
forth from aU classes of society, and the notorious fact of pecu
niary contiibutions made throughout the countiy for its aid and
advancement. After aU this, whoever can see cause of danger
to our pacffic relations from the adoption of this resolution has
a keener vision than I can pretend to. Sir, there is no aug
mented danger; there is no danger. The question comes at
last to this, whether, on a subject of this sort, this House holds
an opffiion which is worthy to be expressed.
Even suppose. Sir, an agent or commissioner were to be im
meffiately sent, — a measure which I myself beUeve to be the
proper one, — there is no breach of neutiaUty, nor any just cause
of offence. Such an agent, of course, would not be accredited ;
he woffid not be a pubUc miffister. The object woffid be inqui
ry and iffiormation ; inquiry wffich we have a right to make, in
formation which we are interested to possess. If a dismember
ment of the Turkish empire be taking place, or has already
taken place ; if a new state be rising, or be already risen, in the
Mediterranean, — who can doubt, that, without any breach of
neutiaUty, we may ffiform ourselves of these events for the gov
ernment of our own concerns ? The Greeks have declared the
Turkish coasts ffi a state of blockade ; may we not inform our
selves whether this blockade be nominal or real 7 and, of course,
whether it shaU be regarded or disregarded ? The greater our
tiade may happen to be with Smyrna, a consideration which
seems to have alarmed some gentlemen, the greater is the rea
son, ffi my opiffion, why we shoffid seek to be accurately in
formed of those events which may affect its safety. It seems to
me impossible, therefore, for any reasonable man to imagine
that this resolution can expose us to the resentment of the Sub
Ume Porte.
As Uttle reason is there for fearing its consequences upon the
conduct of the Affied Powers. They may, very naturaUy, ffis-
like our sentiments upon the subject of the Greek revolution ;
but what those sentiments are they wffi much more explicitly
learn ffi the President's message than in this resolution. They
might, indeed, prefer that we should express no dissent from the

92 Speeches in Congress
doctiffies which they have avowed, and the appUcation which
they have made of those doctrmes to the case of Greece. But I
tiust we are not ffisposed to leave them in any doubt as to our
sentiments upon these important subjects. They have ex
pressed their opinions, and do not call that expression of opinion
an interference ; in which respect they are right, as the expres
sion of opiffion in such cases is not such an interference as
woffid justify the Greeks ffi considerffig the powers at war with
them. For the same reason, any expression which we may
make of different principles and ffifferent sympathies is no
interference. No one would caU the President's message an
interference ; and yet it is much stionger in that respect than
this resolution. If either of them coffid be construed to be an
interference, no doubt it would be improper, at least it woffid be
so according to my view of the subject ; for the very thing which
I have attempted to resist in the course of these observations is
the right of foreign interference. But neither the message nor
the resolution has that character. There is not a power in Eu
rope which can suppose, that, in expressing our opinions on this
occasion, we are governed by any desire of aggrandizing our
selves or of injuring others. We do no more than to maintain
those estabUshed principles in which we have an interest in
common with other nations, and to resist the intioduction of
new principles and new rffies, calcffiated to destioy the relative
independence of states, and particularly hostile to the whole
fabric of our government.
I close, then. Sir, with repeating, that the object of this resolu
tion is to avaU ourselves of the interesting occasion of the
Greek revolution to make our protest against the doctrines of
the Affied Powers, both as they are laid down in principle and
as they are appUed in practice. I think it right, too. Sir, not to
be unseasonable in the expression of our regard, and, as far as
that goes, in a manifestation of our sympathy with a long op
pressed and now stiuggUng people. I am not of those who
would, in the hour of utmost perU, withhold such encouragement
as might be properly and lawfuUy given, and, when the crisis
should be past, overwhelm the rescued sufferer with kinffiiess
and caresses. The Greeks adffiess the civilized world with a
pathos not easy to be resisted. They invoke our favor by more
moving considerations than can well belong to the conffition of

The Revolution in Greece

93

any other people. They stietch out their arms to the Christian
communities of the earth, beseeching them, by a generous rec
oUection of their ancestors, by the consideration of their deso
lated and mined cities and vUlages, by their wives and chUdren
sold mto an accursed slavery, by their blood, which they seem
willing to pour out like water, by the common faith, and in the
name, which unites cffi Cffiistians, that they woffid extend to
them at least some token of compassionate regard. /

The Tariff^

At an early period of the session of Congress of 1823-24 a bill
was introduced into the House of Representatives to amend the sev
eral acts laying duties on imports. The object of the bill was a
comprehensive revision of the existing laws, with a view to the exten
sion of the protective system. The bill became the subject of a
protracted debate, in which much of the talent of the House on both
sides was engaged. Mr. Webster took an active part in the discussion,
and spoke upon many of the details of the bill while it remained in the
committee of the whole house on the state of the Union. Several ob
jectionable provisions were removed, and various amendments were in
troduced upon his motion ; and it was a matter of regret to him, as seen
in the following speech, that the friends of the bill were not able or will
ing to bring it into a form in which, as a whole, he could give it his
support. On the 30th and 31st of March, Mr. Clay, Speaker of the
House, addressed the committee of the whole, at length and with great
ability, on the general principles of the bill ; and he was succeeded by
Mr. Webster, on the 1st and 2d of April, in the following speech.
Mr. Chairman, — I will avaU myself of the present occasion
to make some remarks on certain principles and opinions which
have been recently advanced, and on those considerations which,
in my judgment, ought to govern us in deciffing upon the sev
eral and respective parts of this very important and complex
measure. I can truly say that this is a painfffi duty. I deeply
regret the necessity wffich is Ukely to be imposed upon me of
giving a general affirmative or negative vote on the whole of
* A Speech delivered on the 1st and 2d of April, 1824, in the House of Rep
resentatives, on the Bill for revising the several Acts imposing Duties on Certain
Articles imported into the United States.

Henry Clay
From the Painting by Edward Dalton Marchant,
Department of State, Washington

.f^.EilBOiL BcCo^Boelcn .

The Tariff 95
the bffi. 1 cannot but think this mode of proceeffing liable to
great objections. It exposes both those who support and those
who oppose the measure to very unjust and injurious misappre
hensions. There may be good reasons for favoring some of the
provisions of the bffi, and equaUy stiong reasons for opposing
others ; and these provisions do not stand to each other in the
relation of principal and incident. If that were the case, those
who are in favor of the principal might forego then- opinions
upon incidental and suborffinate provisions. But the bffi pro
poses enactments entirely ffistffict and different from one an
other ffi character and tendency. Some of its clauses are in
tended merely for revenue ; and of those which regard the pro
tection of home manufactures, one part stands upon very ffiffer
ent grounds from those of other parts. So that probably every
gentleman who may ffitimately support the bffi will vote for
much wffich his judgment does not approve ; and those who op
pose it wffi oppose something which they would very glaffiy
support. Beffig mtiusted with the interests of a distiict highly commer
cial, and deeply interested in manufactures also, I wish to state
my opiffions on the present measure, not as on a whole, for it
has no entire and homogeneous character, but as on a coUection
of different enactments, some of which meet my approbation
and some of wffich do not.
And aUow me. Sir, ffi the first place, to state my regret, if in
deed I ought not to express a warmer sentiment, at the names
or designations which Mr. Speaker * has seen fit to adopt for
the purpose of describing the advocates and the opposers of the
present bUl. It is a question, he says, between the friends of an
" American poUcy " and those of a " foreign policy." This, Sir,
is an assumption which I take the Uberty most directly to deny.
Mr. Speaker certaiffiy intended nothing ffiviffious or derogatory
to any part of the House by this mode of denominating friends
and enemies. But there is power in names, and this manner
of ffistingffishffig those who favor and those who oppose partic-
ffiar measures may lead to inferences to which no member of the
House can subiffit. It may imply that there is a more exclusive
and pecuUar regard to American ffiterests in one class of opin-
* Mr. Clay.

96 Speeches in Congress
ions than in another. Such an impUcation is to be resisted and
repelled. Every member has a right to the presumption, that he
pursues what he beUeves to be the interest of his countiy with
as sincere a zeal as any other member. I claim this in my own
case ; and whUe I shaU not, for any purpose of description or
convenient arrangement, use terms which may imply any disre
spect to other men's opinions, much less any imputation upon
other men's motives, it is my duty to take care that the use of
such terms by others be not, against the wffi of those who adopt
them, made to produce a false impression.
Indeed, Sir, it is a Uttle astonishing, if it seemed convenient
to Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of ffistinction, to make use of
the terms " American poUcy " and " foreign poUcy," that he
should not have appUed them in a manner precisely the reverse
of that in which he has in fact used them. If names are
thought necessary, it woffid be weU enough, one woffid think,
that the name shoffid be in some measure descriptive of the
thing ; and since Mr. Speaker denominates the poUcy which he
recommends " a new poUcy in this country " ; since he speaks
of the present measure as a new era in our legislation ; since
he professes to ffivite us to depart from our accustomed course,
to instinct ourselves by the wisdom of others, and to adopt the
policy of the most ffistinguished foreign states, — one is a little
curious to know with what propriety of speech this imitation of
other nations is denominated an " American policy," while, on
the contiary, a preference for our own estabUshed system, as it
now actuaUy exists and always has existed, is caUed a " foreign
poUcy.'' This favorite American policy is what America has
never tiled ; and this offious foreign poUcy is what, as we are
told, foreign states have never pursued. Sir, that is the tiuest
American poUcy which shaU most usefffily employ American
capital and American labor, and best sustain the whole popffia
tion. With me it is a fundamental axiom, it is ffiterwoven with
aU my opinions, that the great interests of the country are united
and inseparable ; that agricffiture, commerce, and manufactures
wffi prosper together or langffish together ; and that aU legisla
tion is dangerous which proposes to benefit one of these without
looking to consequences which may faU on the others.
Passing from this. Sir, I am bound to say that Mr. Speaker
began his able and impressive speech at the proper point of ffi-

The Tariff 97
quiry ; I mean the present state and condition of the countiy ,
although I am so unfortunate, or rather although I am so happy,
as to differ from him very widely in regard to that condition. 1
ffissent entirely from the justice of that picture of ffistress which
he has drawn. I have not seen the reaUty, and know not where
it exists. Within my observation, there is no cause for so
gloomy and terrifying a representation. In respect to the New
England States, with the condition of which I am of course
best acquainted, the present appears to me a period of very
general prosperity. Not, indeed, a time for sudden acquisition
and great profits, not a day of extraorffinary activity and suc-
cessfffi specffiation. There is no doubt a considerable depres
sion of prices, and, in some degree, a stagnation of business.
But the case presented by Mr. Speaker was not one of depres
sion, but of distress; of universal, pervading, intense distress,
Umited to no class and to no place. We are represented as on
the very verge and brffik of national rffin. So far from acquies-
cffig in these opffiions, I beUeve there has been no period in
wffich the general prosperity was better secured, or rested on a
more soUd foundation. As applicable to the Eastern States, I
put this remark to their representatives, and ask them if it is not
true. When has there been a time ffi which the means of Uving
have been more accessible and more abundant ? When has labor
been rewarded, I do not say with a larger, but with a more cer
tain success ? Profits, indeed, are low ; in some pursuits of life,
wffich it is not proposed to benefit, but to burden, by this biU,
very low. But stffi I am unacquainted with any proofs of ex-
tiaordffiary ffistiess. What, indeed, are the general indications
of the state of the country ? There is no famine nor pestUence
in the land, nor war, nor desolation. There is no writhing un
der the burden of taxation. The means of subsistence are
abundant ; and at the very moment when the miserable condi
tion of the countiy is asserted, it is admitted that the wages of
labor are high in comparison with those of any other countiy.
A country, then, enjoying a profound peace, perfect civU Uberty,
with the means of subsistence cheap and abundant, with the re
ward of labor sure, and its wages higher than anywhere else,
cannot be represented as in gloom, melancholy, and distiess, but
by the effort of extiaordffiary powers of tiagedy.
Even if, in judging of this question, we were to regard offiy
VOL. V. — 7

98 Speeches in Congress
those proofs to wffich we have been referred, we shaU probably
come to a conclusion somewhat different from that which has
been drawn. Our exports, for example, although certainly less
than in some years, were not, last year, so much below an av
erage formed upon the exports of a series of years, and putting
those exports at a fixed value, as might be supposed. The value
of the exports of agricffitural products, of animals, of the prod
ucts of the forest and of the sea, together with gunpowder,
spirits, and sunffiy unenumerated articles, amounted in the sev
eral years to the foUowing sums, viz. : —
In 1790,  $ 27,716,152
1804,  33,842,316
1807,  38,465,854
Coming up now to our own times, and taking the exports of
the years 1821, 1822, and 1823, of the same articles and prod
ucts, at the same prices, they stand thus : —
In 1821, .... . $ 45,643,175
1822,  48,782,295
1823,  55,863,491
Mr. Speaker has taken the very extiaordinary year of 1803,
and, adffing to the exportation of that year what he thinks
ought to have been a just augmentation, in proportion to the
increase of our popffiation, he swells the resffit to a magnitude,
which, when compared with our actual exports, would exhibit a
great deficiency. But is there any justice in this mode of cal-
cffiation ? In the ffist place, as before observed, the year 1803
was a year of extiaordinary exportation. By reference to the
accounts, that of the article of Uour, for example, there was an
export that yeEir of thirteen hundred thousand barrels ; but the
very next year it feU to eight hundred thousand, and the next
year to seven hunffied thousand. In the next place, there never
was any reason to expect that the fficrease of our exports of ag
ricultural products would keep pace with the increase of our
population. That woffid be against aU experience. It is, in
deed, most desirable, that there shoffid be an augmented demand
for the products of agricffiture; but, nevertheless, the official
returns of our exports do not show that absolute want of aU for
eign market which has been so stiongly stated.
But there are other means by which to judge of the general

The Tariff 99
condition of the people. The quantity of the means of subsist
ence consumed, or, to make use of a pffiaseology better suited
to the condition of om- own people, the quantity of the comforts
of Ufe enjoyed, is one of those means. It so happens, indeed,
that it is not so easy in this countey as elsewhere to ascertain
facts of this sort with accuracy. Where most of the articles of
subsistence and most of the comforts of Ufe are taxed, there is,
of course, great facUity in ascertffining, from official statements,
the amount of consumption. But in this countiy, most fortu
nately, the government neither knows, nor is concerned to know,
the annual consumption ; and estimates can offiy be formed in
another mode, and in reference only to a few articles. Of these
articles, tea is one. It is not quite a luxury, and yet is some
thing above the absolute necessaries of life. Its consumption,
therefore, wffi be ffiminished ffi times of adversity, and aug
mented ffi times of prosperity. By deducting the annual ex
port from the annual import, and taking a number of years
together, we may arrive at a probable estimate of consumption.
The average of eleven years, from 1790 to 1800, fficlusive, wiU
be found to be two miffions and a half of pounds. From 1801
to 1812, fficlusive, the average was three mffiions seven hundred
thousand ; and the average of the last three years, to wit, 1821,
1822, and 1823, was five mUUons and a half. Having made a
just aUowance for the increase of our numbers, we shaU stffi
find, I think, from these statements, that there is no distiess
which has Umited our means of subsistence and enjoyment.
In forming an opinion of the degree of general prosperity, we
may regard, Ukewise, the progress of ffiternal improvements, the
ffivestment of capital in roads, bridges, and canals. AU these
prove a balance of income over expenditure; they afford evi
dence that there is a surplus of profits, which the present gener
ation is usefuUy vesting for the benefit of the next. It cannot
be deffied, that, in this particffiar, the progress of the countiy is
steady and rapid.
We may look, too, to the sums expended for education. Are
our coUeges deserted? Do fathers find themselves less able than
usual to educate their cffilffien ? It wffi be found, I imagine,
that the amount paid for the purpose of education is constantly
increasing, and that the schools and colleges were never more
fuU than at the present moment. I may add, that the endow-

loo Speeches in Congress
ment of pubUc charities, the contiibutions to objects of general
benevolence, whether foreign or domestic, the munfficence of
mffividuals towards whatever promises to benefit the communi
ty, are aU so many proofs of national prosperity. And, finally,
there is no defalcation of revenue, no pressure of taxation.
The general resffit, therefore, of a fair examffiation of the pres
ent conffition of things, seems to me to be, that there is a con
siderable depression of prices, and curtaUment of profit ; and in
some parts of the country, it must be admitted, there is a great
degree of pecuffiary embarrassment, arising from the ffifficffity
of paying debts which were contiacted when prices were high.
With these quaUfications, the general state of the country may
be said to be prosperous ; and these are not sufficient to give to
the whole face of affairs any appearance of general distress.
Supposing the evU, then, to be a depression of prices, and a
partial pecuffiary pressure, the next inquiry is into the causes of
that evU ; and it appears to me that there are several ; and in
this respect, I think, too much has been imputed by Mr. Speak
er to the single cause of the ffiminution of exports. Connected,
as we are, with all the commercial nations of the world, and
having observed great changes to take place elsewhere, we
shoffid consider whether the causes of those changes have not
reached us, and whether we are not suffering by the operation
of them, in common with others. Undoubteffiy, there has been
a great faU in the price of aU commoffities throughout the com
mercial world, in consequence of the restoration of a state of
peace. When the Affies entered France in 1814, prices rose as-
tonishffigly fast, and very high. Colonial produce, for instance,
in the ports of this countiy, as weU as elsewhere, sprung up sud
denly from the lowest to the highest extieme. A new and vast
demand was created for the commoffities of tiade. These were
the natural consequences of the great poUtical changes which
then took place in Europe.
We are to consider, too, that our own war created new de
mand, and that a government expenditure of twenty-five or
thirty miffion doUars a year had the usual effect of enhancffig
prices. We are obUged to add, that the paper issues of our
banks carried the same effect stffi further. A depreciated cur
rency existed in a great part of the country ; depreciated to such
an extent, that, at one time, exchange between the centie and the

The Tariff loi
North was as high as twenty per cent. The Bank of the United
States was instituted to correct this evU ; but, for causes which
it is not necessary now to enumerate, it ffid not for some years
bring back the currency of the countiy to a sound state. This
depreciation of the circulating currency was so much, of course,
added to the nominal prices of commoffities, and these prices,
thus unnaturaUy high, seemed, to those who looked only at the
appearance, to ffifficate great prosperity. But such prosperity is
more specious than real. It would have been better, probably,
as the shock woffid have been less, if prices had fallen sooner.
At length, however, they feU ; and as there is Uttie doubt that
certain events in Europe had an influence in determiffing the
time at which this faU took place, I wffi advert shortly to some
of the principal of those events.
In May, 1819, the British House of Commons decided, by a
unanimous vote, that the resumption of cash payments by the
Bank of England shoffid not be deferred beyond the ensuing
February. The restriction had been continued from time to
time, and from year to year, ParUament always professing to
look to the restoration of a specie currency whenever it should
be found practicable. Having been, in Jffiy, 1818, continued to
Jffiy, 1819, it was understood that, in the interim, the important
question of the time at which cash payments shoffid be resumed
shoffid be finaUy settled. In the latter part of the year 1818, the
circffiation of the bank had been greatly reduced, and a severe
scarcity of money was felt in the London market. Such was the
state of thffigs ffi England. On the Continent, other important
events took place. The French Indemnity Loan had been nego
tiated ffi the summer of 1818, and the proportion of it belonging
to Austiia, Russia, and Prussia had been sold. Tffis created an
unusuffi demand for gold and sUver in those countries. It has
been stated, that the amount of the precious metals tiansmitted
to Austiia and Russia in that year was at least twenty miffions
sterUng. Other large sums were sent to Prussia and to Denmark.
The effect of this sudden ffiain of specie, felt first at Paris, was
commufficated to Amsterdam and Hamburg, and aU other com
mercial places m the North of Europe.
The paper system of England had certainly commufficated an
artfficial value to property. It had encouraged specffiation, and
excited over-tiaffing. When the shock therefore came, and this

I02 Speeches in Congress
violent pressure for money acted at the same moment on the
Continent and in England, inflated and unnatural prices coffid
be kept up no longer. A reduction took place, which has been
estimated to have been at least equal to a fall of thirty, if not
forty per cent. The depression was universal ; and the change
was felt in the United States severely, though not equally so
in every part. There are those, I am aware, who maintain
that the events to which I have aUuded ffid not cause the great
faU of prices, but that that faU was natural and ffievitable, from
the previously existmg state of things, the abundance of com
moffities, and the want of demand. But that woffid only
prove that the effect was produced in another way, rather than
by another cause. If these great and sudden caUs for money
did not reduce prices, but prices feU, as of themselves, to their
natural state, still the result is the same ; for we perceive that,
after these new calls for money, prices coffid not be kept longer
at their unnatural height.
About the time of these foreign events, our own bank system
underwent a change ; and aU these causes, in my view of the
subject, concurred to produce the great shock which took place
in our commercial cities, and in many parts of the country.
The year 1819 was a year of numerous faUures, and very con
siderable distiess, and woffid have furnished far better grounds
than exist at present for that gloomy representation of our con
ffition which has been presented. Mr. Speaker has aUuded to
the stiong mcUnation wffich exists, or has existed, in various
parts of the countiy, to issue paper money, as a proof of great
existing difficffities. I regard it rather as a very productive cause
of those difficffities ; and the committee wiU not faU to observe,
that there is, at this moment, much the loudest complaint of
ffistiess precisely where there has been the greatest attempt to
reUeve it by systems of paper creffit. And, on the other hand,
content, prosperity, and happiness are most observable in those
parts of the countiy where there has been the least endeavor to
administer reUef by law. In truth, nothing is so banefffi, so
utterly rffinous to aU tiue industry, as interfering with the legal
value of money, or attempting to raise artificial standards to
supply its place. Such remedies suit well the spirit of extrava
gant specffiation, but they sap the very foundation of all honest
acquisition. By weakening the security of property, they take

The Tariff 103
away aU motive for exertion. Their effect is to tiansfer prop
erty. Whenever a debt is aUowed to be paid by any thing less
valuable than the legal currency in respect to which it was con
tiacted, the ffifference between the value of the paper given in
payment and the legal cuirency is precisely so much property
taken from one man and given to another, by legislative enact
ment. When we talk, therefore, of protecting industiy, let us remem
ber that the first measure for that end is to secure it in its earn
ings ; to assure it that it shall receive its own. Before we invent
new modes of raising prices, let us take care that existing prices
are not rendered whoUy unavaUable, by making them capable
of being pffid in depreciated paper. I regard. Sir, this issue of
irredeemable paper as the most prominent and deplorable cause
of whatever pressure stffi exists in the country ; and, further, I
woffid put the question to the members of this committee,
whether it is not from that part of the people who have tiled
this paper system, and tiled it to their cost, that this bffi receives
the most earnest support ? And I cannot forbear to ask, further,
whether tffis support does not proceed rather from a general feel
ing of uneasiness under the present conffition of things, than
from the clear perception of any benefit which the measure itself
can confer? Is not aU expectation of advantage centred in a
sort of vague hope, that change may produce relief? Debt cer-
taffily presses hardest where prices have been longest kept up
by artfficial means. They find the shock Ughtest who take it
soonest ; and I fffily beUeve that, if those parts of the country
which now suffer most, had not augmented the force of the blow
by deferrffig it, they woffid have now been in a much better con
ffition than they are. We may assure ourselves, once for aU,
Sir, that there can be no such thing as payment of debts by
legislation. We may aboUsh debts indeed; we may tiansfer
property by visionary and violent laws. But we deceive both
ourselves and our constituents, if we flatter either ourselves or
them with the hope that there is any reUef against whatever
pressure exists, but in economy and industiy. The depression
of prices and the stagnation of business have been in tiuth the
necessary result of circumstances. No government could pre
vent them, and no government can altogether reUeve the people
from their effect. We have enjoyed a day of extiaordinary pros-

I04 Speeches in Congress
perity ; we had been neutial whUe the world was at war, and
had found a great demand for our products, our navigation, and
our labor. We had no right to expect that that state of things
woffid continue always. With the return of peace, foreign na
tions woffid stiuggle for themselves, and enter into competition
with us in the great objects of pursffit.
Now, Sir, what is the remedy for existing evUs ? What is the
course of poUcy suited to our actual condition ? Certainly it is
not our wisdom to adopt any system that may be offered to us,
without examination, and in the blind hope that whatever
changes our condition may improve it. It is better that we
should " bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we know not of"
We are bound to see that there is a fitness and an aptitude in
whatever measures may be recommended to reUeve the evUs
that afflict us ; and before we adopt a system that professes to
make great alterations, it is our duty to look carefuUy to each
leaffing ffiterest of the commuffity, and see how it may proba
bly be affected by our proposed legislation.
And, in the first place, what is the conffition of our com
merce? Here we must clearly perceive, that it is not enjoying
that rich harvest which feU to its fortune during the continuance
of the European wars. It has been greatly depressed, and Um
ited to smaU profits. Stffi, it is elastic and active, and seems
capable of recovering itself in some measure from its depression.
The shippffig interest, also, has suffered severely, stffi more
severely, probably, than commerce. If any thing shoffid strike
us with astonishment, it is that the navigation of the United
States shoffid be able to sustain itself. Without any govern
ment protection whatever, it goes abroad to challenge compe
tition with the whole world ; and, in spite of aU obstacles, it has
yet been able to maintain eight hunffied thousand tons in the
employment of foreign tiade. How, Sir, do the ship-owners
and navigators accompUsh this ? How is it that they are able
to meet, and in some measm-e overcome, universal competition ?
It is not. Sir, by protection and bounties ; but by unwearied ex
ertion, by extieme economy, by unshaken perseverance, by that
manly and resolute spirit which relies on itself to protect itself.
These causes alone enable American ships stiU to keep their

The Tariff 105
element, and show the flag of their country in distant seas.
The rates of insurance may teach us how thoroughly our ships
are bffilt, and how skUfuUy and safely they are navigated. Risks
are taken, as I learn, from the United States to Liverpool, at
one per cent. ; and from the United States to Canton and back,
as low as tffiee per cent. But when we look to the low rate of
freight, and when we consider, also, that the articles entering
into the composition of a ship, with the exception of wood, are
dearer here than ffi other countries, we cannot but be utterly
surprised that the shipping interest has been able to sustain
itself at all. I need not say that the navigation of the country
is essential to its honor and its defence. Yet, instead of pro
posing benefits for it in this hour of its depression, we threaten
by tffis measure to lay upon it new and heavy burdens. In the
ffiscussion, the other day, of that provision of the bffi which
proposes to tax tallow for the benefit of the oU-merchants and
whalemen, we had the pleasure of hearing eloquent effiogiums
upon that portion of our shipping employed in the whale-fishery,
and stiong statements of its importance to the pubUc interest.
But the same bffi proposes a severe tax upon that interest, for
the benefit of the iron-manufacturer and the hemp-grower. So
that the taUow-chanffiers and soapboUers are sacrificed to the oU-
merchants, ffi order that these again may contiibute to the man
ufacturers of iron and the growers of hemp.
If such be the state of our commerce and navigation, what is
the conffition of our home manufactures ? How are they amidst
the general depression ? Do they need further protection ? and
if any, how much ? On aU these points, we have had much
general statement, but Uttle precise information. In the very
elaborate speech of Mr. Speaker, we are not suppUed with satis
factory grounds of judging with respect to these various partic-
ffiars. Who can teU, from any thing yet before the committee,
whether the proposed duty be too high or too low on any one
article ? Gentlemen tell us, that they are in favor of domestic
mdustry ; so am L They woffid give it protection ; so woffid L
But then aU domestic mdustey is not confined to manufactures.
The employments of agriculture, commerce, and navigation are
aU branches of the same domestic industiy; they aU furnish
employment for American capital and American labor. And
when the question is, whether new duties shaU be laid, for the

io6 Speeches in Congress
purpose of givffig further encouragement to particular manu
factures, every reasonable man must ask himself, both whether
the proposed new encouragement be necessary, and whether it
can be given without injustice to other branches of mdustry.
It is desirable to know, also, somewhat more ffistinctly, how
the proposed means wffi produce the intended effect. One great
object proposed, for example, is the increase of the home market
for the consumption of agricultural products. This certainly is
much to be desired ; but what provisions of the bffi are expected
whoUy or principaUy to produce this, is not stated. I woffid
not deny that some increase of the home market may foUow,
from the adoption of this biU, but aU its provisions have not an
equal tendency to produce tffis effect. Those manufactures
which employ most labor, create, of course, most demand for
articles of consumption ; and those create least in the production
of which capital and skffi enter as the chief ingreffients of cost.
I cannot. Sir, take tffis bffi merely because a committee has
recommended it. I cannot espouse a side, and fight under a
flag. I whoUy repel the idea that we must take this law, or
pass no law on the subject. What shoffid hinder us from exer-
cisffig our own judgments upon these provisions, sffigly and
severally ? Who has the power to place us, or why should we
place ourselves, ffi a conffition where we cannot give to every
measure, that is ffistinct and separate in itself, a separate and
distinct consideration ? Sir, I presume no member of the com
mittee will withhold his assent from what he thinks right, until
others wffi yield their assent to what they think wrong. There
are many things in this bill acceptable, probably, to the general
sense of the House. Why shoffid not these provisions be passed
into a law, and others left to be decided upon their own merits,
as a majority of the House shall see fit? To some of these
provisions, I am myself decidedly favorable; to others I have
great objections ; and I should have been very glad of an oppor
tunity of giving my own vote ffistinctly on propositions which
are, in their own nature, essentially and substantially ffistinct
from one another.
But, Sir, before expressffig my own opiffion upon the several
provisions of this bffi, I wffi advert for a moment to some other
general topics. We have heard much of the policy of England,
and her example has been repeateffiy urged upon us, as proving,

The Tariff 107
not only the expeffiency of encouragement and protection, but
of exclusion and direct prohibition also. I took occasion the
other day to remark, that more Uberal notions were becomffig
prevalent on tffis subject ; that the poUcy of restiaints and pro
hibitions was gettffig out of repute, as the true nature of com
merce became better understood ; and that, among public men,
those most ffistinguished were most decided in their reprobation
of the broad principle of exclusion and prohibition. Upon the
truth of this representation, as matter of fact, I supposed there
coffid not be two opinions among those who had observed the
progress of poUticffi sentiment in other countries, and were ac
quainted with its present state. In this respect, however, it
woffid seem that I was greatly mistaken. We have heard it
agaffi and agaffi declared, that the EngUsh government stUl ad
heres, with immovable ffimness, to its old doctiines of prohibi
tion ; that although journalists, theorists, and scientific writers
advance other doctiffies, yet the practical men, the legislators,
the government of the country, are too wise to foUow them.
It has even been most sagaciously hffited, that the promffiga-
tion of Uberal opffiions on these subjects is intended only to de
lude other governments, to cajole them into the foUy of liberal
ideas, wffile England retaffis to herself aU the benefits of the ad
mirable old system of prohibition. We have heard from Mr.
Speaker a warm commendation of the complex mechanism of
this system. The British empire, it is said, is, in the ffist place.
to be protected against the rest of the world ; then the British
Isles agamst the colonies; next, the isles respectively against
each other, England herself, as the heart of the empire, being
protected most of aU, and against aU.
Trffiy, Sir, it appears to me that Mr. Speaker's imagination
has seen system, and order, and beauty, in that which is much
more justly considered as the result of ignorance, partiaUty, or
violence. Tffis part of EngUsh legislation has resffited, partly
from considering Ireland as a conquered country, partly from
the want of a complete union, even with Scotland, and partly
from the narrow views of colonial regffiation, which in early and
miinformed periods influenced the European states.
Nothing, I imagine, woffid strike the pubUc men of England
more sffigularly, than to find gentlemen of real information and
much weight ffi the councUs of this country expressing senti-

io8 Speeches in Congress
ments Uke these, in regard to the existing state of these EngUsh
laws. I have never said, indeed, that prohibitory laws do not
exist in England ; we aU know they do ; but the question is.
Does she owe her prosperity and greatness to these laws ?
I venture to say, that such is not the opinion of public men
now in England, and the continuance of the laws, even without
any alteration, woffid not be evidence that their opinion is dif
ferent from what I have represented it ; because the laws hav
ing existed long, and great interests having been built up on
the faith of them, they cannot now be repealed without great
and overwhelmffig inconveffience. Because a thing has been
wrongly done, it does not therefore foUow that it can now be
undone ; and this is the reason, as I understand it, for which
exclusion, proffibition, and monopoly are suffered to remain in
any degree in the EngUsh system ; and for the same reason, it
wffi be wise in us to take our measures, on aU subjects of this
kind, with great caution. We may not be able, but at the haz
ard of much injury to inffividuals, hereafter to retiace our steps.
And yet, whatever is extravagant or unreasonable is not Ukely
to endure. There may come a moment of stiong reaction ; and
if no moderation be shown in laying on duties, there may be
as Uttle scruple in taking them off.
It may be here observed, that there is a broad and marked
ffistffiction between entire prohibition and reasonable encour
agement. It is one thing, by duties or taxes on foreign articles,
to awaken a home competition in the production of the same ar
ticles ; it is another tffing to remove aU competition by a total
exclusion of the foreign article ; and it is qffite another thing
stiU, by total proffibition, to raise up at home manufactures not
suited to the cUmate, the nature of the countiy, or the state of
the popffiation. These are substantial distinctions, and although
it may not be easy in every case to determine w^hich of them
appUes to a given article, yet the distinctions themselves exist,
and in most cases wiU be sufficiently clear to ffifficate the tiue
course of poUcy ; and, unless I have greatly mistaken the pre-
vaffing sentiment in the councUs of England, it grows every day
more and more favorable to the ffiminution of restiictions, and
to the wisdom of leaving much (I do not say every thing, for
that woffid not be tiue) to the enterprise and the discretion of
ffidividuals. I should certainly not have taken up the time of

The Tariff 109
the committee to state at any length the opinions of other gov
ernments, or of the public men of other countries, upon a sub
ject like tffis ; but an occasional remark made by me the other
day, having been so directly contioverted, especiaUy by Mr.
Speaker, ffi his observations yesterday, I must take occasion to
refer to some proofs of what I have stated.
What, then, is the state of EngUsh opinion ? Every body
knows that, after the termination of the late European war,
there came a time of great pressure in England. Since her ex
ample has been quoted, let it be asked ffi what mode her gov
ernment sought reUef Did it aim to maintain artificial and
unnatural prices ? Did it maintain a swoUen and extravagant
paper circffiation ? Did it carry further the laws of prohibition
and exclusion? Did it ffiaw closer the cords of colonial re-
stiffint? No, Sir, but precisely the reverse. Instead of relying
on legislative contrivances and artificial devices, it trusted to the
enterprise and mdustry of the people, which it sedffiously sought
to excite, not by imposffig restraffit, but by removing it, wher
ever its removal was practicable. In May, 1820, the attention of
the government having been much turned to the state of foreign
teade, a ffistingffished member * of the House of Peers brought
forward a ParUamentary motion upon that subject, foUowed
by an ample ffiscussion and a fffil statement of ffis own opin
ions. In the course of his remarks, he observed, "that there
ought to be no prohibitory duties, as such ; for that it was evi
dent, that, where a manufacture coffid not be carried on, or a
production raised, but under the protection of a prohibitory duty,
that manufacture, or that produce, coffid not be brought to mar
ket but at a loss. In his opinion, the name of strict prohibition
might, therefore, ffi commerce, be got rid of altogether ; but he
ffid not see the same objection to protecting duties, which, while
they admitted of the intioduction of commoffities from abroad
similar to those which we ourselves manffiactured, placed them
so much on a level as to aUow a competition between them."
" No axiom," he added, " was more tiue than this : that it was
by growing what the territory of a countiy coffid grow most
cheaply, and by receiving from other countries what it coffid not
produce except at too great an expense, that the greatest degree
• Lord Lansdowne.

no Speeches in Congress
of happiness was to be communicated to the greatest extent of
population." In assenting to the motion, the ffist minister* of the crown
expressed his own opinion of the great advantage resulting from
unresti-icted freedom of trade. " Of the soundness of that gen
eral principle," he observed, " I can entertain no doubt. I can
entertain no doubt of what woffid have been the great advan
tages to the civffized world, if the system of unrestiicted tiade
had been acted upon by every nation from the earUest period of
its commercial intercourse with its neighbors. If to those ad
vantages there could have been any exceptions, I am persuaded
that they woffid have been but few ; and I am also persuaded
that the cases to which they woffid have referred woffid not
have been, in themselves, connected with the trade and com
merce of England. But we are now in a situation in which, I
will not say that a reference to the principle of unrestricted
teade can be of no use, because such a reference may correct
erroneous reasoning, but in which it is impossible for us, or for
any countiy in the world but the United States of America, to
act unreserveffiy on that principle. The commercial regffiations
of the European world have been long established, and cannot
suddenly be departed from." Havffig supposed a proposition to
be made to England by a foreign state for free commerce and
intercourse, and an unrestricted exchange of agricffitural products
and of manufactures, he proceeds to observe : " It would be im
possible to accede to such a proposition. We have risen to our
present greatness under a ffifferent system. Some suppose that
we have risen in consequence of that system ; others, of whom I
am one, believe that we have risen in spite of that system. But,
whichever of these hypotheses be true, certain it is that we have
risen under a very dffierent system than that of free and unre-
.stricted tiade. It is utterly impossible, with our debt and taxa
tion, even if they were but half their existing amount, that we
can suddenly adopt the system of free trade."
Lord Ellenborough, in the same debate, said, " that he attiib-
uted the general ffistiess then existing in Europe to the regffia
tions that had taken place since the destruction of the French
power. Most of the states on the Continent had surrounded
* Lord Liverpool.

The Tariff 1 1 1
themselves as with waUs of brass, to inhibit intercourse with
other states. Intercourse was proffibited, even in districts of the
same state, as was the case in Austria and Sarffinia. Thus,
though the taxes on the people had been Ughtened, the severity
of their condition had been increased. He believed that the
discontent which pervaded most parts of Europe, and especially
Germany, was more owffig to commercial restrictions than to
any theoreticffi doctiines on government ; and that a free com
munication among them woffid do more to restore tianquiffity,
than any other step that coffid be adopted. He objected to aU
attempts to frustiate the benevolent intentions of Providence,
which had given to various countiies various wants, in order
to brffig them together. He objected to it as anti-social; he
objected to it, as maldng commerce the means of barbariz
ing, instead of eiffighteffing, nations. The state of the teade
with France was most disgraceful to both countries ; the two
greatest civilized nations of the world, placed at a distance of
scarcely twenty mUes from each other, had contiived, by their
artificial regffiations, to reduce their commerce with each other
to a mere nuffity." Every member spealdng on this occasion
agreed in the general sentiments favorable to unrestricted inter
course, which had thus been advanced ; one of them remarking,
at the conclusion of the debate, that "the principles of free
tiade, which he was happy to see so fffily recognized, were of
the utmost consequence ; for, though, in the present circum
stances of the countey, a free teade was unattaffiable, yet their
task hereafter was to approximate to it. Considering the preju-
ffices and interests which were opposed to the recognition of
that principle, it was no smaU inffication of the firmness and
liberality of government to have so fuUy conceded it."
Sir, we have seen, in the course of this discussion, that several
gentlemen have expressed their high admiration of the silk man
ufacture of England. Its commendation was begun, I think,
by the honorable member from Vermont, who sits near me, who
tffinks that that alone gives conclusive evidence of the benefits
produced by attention to manufactures, inasmuch as it is a great
source of wealth to the nation, and has amply repaid aU the
cost of its protection. Mr. Speaker's approbation of this part of
the EngUsh example was stffi warmer. Now, Sir, it does so
happen, that both these gentlemen ffiffer very widely on tffis

112 Speeches in Congress
point from the opinions entertained in England, by persons of
the ffist rank, both as to knowledge and power. In the debate
to which I have already referred, the proposer of the motion
urged the expeffiency of providffig for the admission of the silks
of France mto England. " He was aware," he said, " that there
was a poor and industrious body of manufacturers, whose inter
ests must suffer by such an arrangement ; and therefore he felt
that it woffid be the duty of ParUament to provide for the pres
ent generation by a large ParUamentary grant. It was con
formable to every prfficiple of sound justice to do so, when the
ffiterests of a particffiar class were sacrfficed to the good of the
whole." In answer to these observations. Lord Liverpool said
that, with reference to several branches of manufactures, time,
and the change of circumstances, had rendered the system of
protecting duties merely nomffial ; and that, ffi his opinion, if
aU the protecting laws which regarded both the wooUen and
cotton manufactures were to be repealed, no injurious effects
would thereby be occasioned. " But," he observes, " with re
spect to sUk, that manufacture in this kffigdom is so completely
artificial, that any attempt to introduce the principles of free
trade with reference to it might put an end to it altogether. I
allow that the silk manufacture is not natural to this countiy.
I wish we had never had a silk manufactory. I allow that it is
natural to France; I allow that it might have been better, had
each country adhered exclusively to that manufacture in which
each is superior ; and had the silks of France been exchanged
for British cottons. But I must look at things as they are;
and when I consider the extent of capital, and the immense pop
ffiation, consisting, I beUeve, of about fifty thousand persons, en
gaged in our sUk manufacture, I can only say, that one of the
few points ffi which I totaUy ffisagree with the proposer of the
motion is the expediency, under existing circumstances, of hold
ing out any idea, that it would be possible to reUnquish the silk
manufacture, and to provide for those who Uve by it, by ParUa
mentary enactment. Whatever objections there may be to the
continuance of the protectffig system, I repeat, that it is impos
sible altogether to reUnqffish it. I may regret that the system
was ever commenced ; but as I cannot recaU that act, I must
submit to the fficonvenience by wffich it is attended, rather than
expose the countey to evUs of greater magnitude." Let it be re-

The Tariff 1 1 3
membered. Sir, that these are not the sentiments of a theorist,
nor the fancies of specffiation ; but the operative opinions of the
ffist minister of England, acknowledged to be one of the ablest
and most practical statesmen of his countiy.
Gentlemen coffid have harffiy been more unfortunate than in
the selection of the sUk manufacture in England as an example
of the beneficial effects of that system which they would recom
mend. It is, in the language which I have quoted, completely
artfficial. It has been sustffined by I know not how many laws,
breaking in upon the plainest principles of general expeffiency.
At the last session of ParUament, the manufacturers petitioned
for the repeal of three or four of these statutes, complaining of
the vexatious restrictions which they impose on the wages of
labor ; setting forth, that a great variety of orders has from time
to time been issued by magistiates under the authority of these
laws, mterfering in an oppressive manner with the minutest de
tails of the manufacture : such as Umiting the number of threads
to an ffich, resteicting the widths of many sorts of work, and
determffiffig the quantity of labor not to be exceeded without
er+ra wages ; that by the operation of these laws, the rate of
wages, ffistead of being left to the recognized principles of regu
lation, has been arbitiarily fixed by persons whose ignorance
renders them incompetent to a just decision ; that masters are
compeUed by law to pay an equal price for aU work, whether
weU or ffi performed ; and that they are whoUy prevented from
usffig improved machinery, it being ordered, that work, in the
weavmg of which macffinery is employed, shaU be paid precisely
at the same rate as if done by hand; that these acts have
frequently given rise to the most vexatious regffiations, the un-
ffitentional breach of which has subjected manufacturers to rffin
ous penalties ; and that the intioduction of aU machinery beffig
prevented, by wffich labor might be cheapened, and the manu
facturers being compeUed to pay at a fixed price, under aU
circumstances, they are unable to afford employment to their
workmen, in times of stagnation of trade, and are compeUed
to stop their looms. And finaUy, they complain, that, notwith
standing these grievances under which they labor, whUe carrying
on their manufacture in London, the law stUl prohibits them,
whUe they continue to reside there, from employing any portion
of their capital in the same business in any other part of the
VOL. V. — 8

114 Speeches in Congress
kffigdom, where it might be more beneficiaUy conducted. Now,
Sir, absurd as these laws must appear to be to every man, the
attempt to repeal them ffid not, as far as I recoUect, altogether
succeed. The weavers were too numerous, their interests too
great, or their prejuffices too steong ; and tffis notable instance
of protection and monopoly stffi exists, to be lamented in Eng
land with as much smcerity as it seems to be admired here.
In order further to show the prevaffing sentiment of the Eng
lish government, I would refer to a report of a select committee
of the House of Commons, at the head of which was the Vice-
President of the Board of Trade (Mr. WaUace), in July, 1820.
¦' The time," say that committee, " when monopoUes coffid be
successfiffiy supported, or would be patiently endured, either in
respect to subjects against subjects, or particular countiies
against the rest of the world, seems to have passed away. Com
merce, to continue unffisturbed and secure, must be, as it was
intended to be, a source of reciprocal amity between nations,
and an interchange of productions to promote the industry, the
wealth, and the happiness of mankind." In moving for the re-
appoffitment of the committee in February, 1823, the same
gentleman said : " We must also get rid of that feeling of ap
propriation which exhibited itself in a ffisposition to produce
every thing necessary for our own consumption, and to render
ourselves independent of the world. No notion could be more
absurd or miscffievous ; it led, even in peace, to an animosity and
rancor greater than existed in time of war. Undoubtedly there
would be great prejudices to combat, both in this countiy and
elsewhere, in the attempt to remove the ffifficffities which are
most obnoxious. It would be impossible to forget the attention
which was in some respects due to the present system of protec
tions, ffithough that attention ought certainly not to be carried
beyond the absolute necessity of the case." And in a second
report of the committee, drawn by the same gentleman, in that
part of it which proposes a diminution of duties on timber from
the North of Europe, and the policy of giving a legislative pref
erence to the importation of such timber in the log, and a ffis-
couragement of the importation of deals, it is stated that the
committee reject this policy, because, among other reasons, " it
is founded on a principle of exclusion, which they are most
averse to see brought into operation, in any new instance, with-

The Tariff 1 1 5
out the wan-ant of some evident and great political expediency."
And on many subsequent occasions the same gentleman has
taken occasion to observe, that he ffiffered from those who
thought that manufactures coffid not flom-ish without restrictions
on tiade ; that old prejuffices of that sort were dying away, and
that more Uberal and just sentiments were taking their place.
These sentiments appear to have been foUowed by important
legal provisions, calcffiated to remove restrictions and prohibi
tions where they were most severely felt ; that is to say, in sev
eral branches of navigation and trade. They have relaxed then-
colonial system, they have opened the ports of their islands, and
have done away the restiiction which limited the trade of the
colony to the mother countey. Colonial products can now be
carried directly from the islands to any part of Europe ; and it
may not be improbable, considering our own high duties on
spirits, that that article may be exchanged hereafter by the Eng
lish West Inffia colonies directly for the timber and deals of the
Baltic. It may be added that Mr. Lowe, whom the gentleman
has cited, says, that nobody supposes that the three great staples
of EngUsh manufactures, cotton, wooUen, and hardware, are
benefited by any existffig protecting duties ; and that one object
of aU these protecting laws is usuaUy overlooked, and that is,
that they have been intended to reconcUe the various mterests to
taxation; the corn law, for example, being designed as some
eqffivalent to the agricffitural ffiterest for the burden of tithes
and of poor-rates.
In fine. Sir, I thffik it is clear, that, if we now embrace the
system of prohibitions and restiictions, we shaU show an affec
tion for what others have ffiscEirded, and be attempting to orna
ment ourselves with cast-off apparel.
Sir, I shoffid not have gone into this proUx detaU of opinions
from any consideration of their special importance on the pres
ent occasion ; but havffig happened to state that such was the
actual opiffion of the government of England at the present
time, and the accuracy of this representation having been so
confidently denied. I have chosen to put the matter beyond
doubt or cavU, ffithough at the expense of these teffious cita
tions I shaU have occasion hereafter to refer more particu
larly to sundry recent British enactments, by way of showing
the dffigence and spirit with which that government strives to

II 6 Speeches in Congress
sustain its navigating interest, by opening the widest possible
range to the enterprise of inffividual adventurers. I repeat, that
I have not aUuded to these examples of a foreign state as being
fit to contiol our own poUcy. In the general principle, I acqui
esce. Protection, when carried to the point which is now rec
ommended, that is, to entire prohibition, seems to me destiuc
tive of aU commercial intercourse between nations. We are
urged to adopt the system upon general principles ; and what
woffid be the consequence of the universal application of such
a general principle, but that nations woffid abstain entirely from
all intercourse with one another ? I do not admit the general
principle ; on the contiary, I thffik freedom of tiade to be the
general principle, and restiiction the exception. And it is for
every state, taking into view its own conffition, to judge of the
propriety, in any case, of making an exception, constantly pre
ferring, as I think aU wise governments wiU, not to depart with
out urgent reason from the general rffie.
There is another point in the existing poUcy of England to
which I woffid most earnestly invite the attention of the com
mittee ; I mean the warehouse system, or what we usuaUy caU
the system of ffiawback. Very great prejudices appear to me
to exist with us on that subject. We seem averse to the exten
sion of the prUiciple. The English government, on the con
tiary, appear to have carried it to the extieme of UberaUty.
They have arrived, however, at their present opinions and pres
ent practice by slow degrees. The tiansit system was com
menced about the year 1803, but the ffist law was partial and
Umited. It admitted the importation of raw materials for ex
portation, but it excluded almost every sort of manufactured
goods. This was done for the same reason that we propose to
prevent the tiansit of Canaffian wheat through the United
States, the fear of aiffing the competition of the foreign article
with our own in foreign markets. Better reflection or more ex
perience has induced them to abandon that mode of reasoning,
and to consider aU such means of influencing foreign markets as
nugatory ; since, in the present active and enUghtened state of
the world, nations wffi supply themselves from the best sources,
and the true poUcy of aU producers, whether of raw materials or
of manffiactured articles, is, not vainly to endeavor to keep
other vendors out of the market, but to conquer them ffi it by

The Tariff 1 1 7
the quality and the cheapness of their articles. The present
policy of England, therefore, is to aUure the importation of com
moffities mto England, there to be deposited in EngUsh ware
houses, thence to be exported in assorted cargoes, and thus en-
abUng her to carry on a general export tiade to all quarters of
the globe. Articles of aU kinds, with the single exception of
tea, may be brought mto England, from any part of the world,
m foreign as weU as British ships, there warehoused, and again
exported, at the pleasure of the owner, without the payment of
any duty or government charge whatever.
WTffie I am upon this subject, I woffid take notice also of the
recent proposition in the English Parliament to aboUsh the tax
on imported wool ; and it is observable that those who support
tffis proposition give the same reasons that have been offered here,
withm the last week, against the duty which we propose on the
same article. They say that their manufacturers require a cheap
and coarse wool, for the supply of the Meffiterranean and Levant
teade, and that, without a more free admission of the wool of the
Continent, that tiade wffi aU faU into the hands of the Germans
and Iteffians, who wffi carry it on through Leghorn and Trieste.
WhUe there is this duty on foreign wool to protect the wool-
growers of England, there is, on the other hand, a prohibition
on the exportation of the native article in aid of the manufactur
ers. The opffiion seems to be gaining stiength, that the tiue
poUcy is to aboUsh both.
Laws have long existed in England preventing the emigra
tion of artisans and the exportation of machinery ; but the poUcy
of these, also, has become doubted, and an inquiry has been in
stituted in ParUament into the expeffiency of repeaUng them.
As to the emigration of artisans, say those who ffisapprove the
laws, if that were desirable, no law coffid effect it; and as to the
exportation of machinery, let us make it and export it as we
woffid any other commodity. If France is determined to spin
and weave her own cotton, let us, if we may, stUl have the ben
efit of furnisffing the machinery.
I have stated these thffigs. Sir, to show what seems to be the
general tone of thinking and reasoffing on these subjects in that
country, the example of which has been so much pressed upon
OS. Whether the present poUcy of England be right or wrong,
wise or unwise, it cannot, as it seems clearly to me, be quoted

ii8 Speeches in Congress
as an authority for carrying further the restiictive and exclusive
system, either in regard to manufactures or trade. To reestab
Ush a sound currency, to meet at once the shock, tiemendous as
it was, of the fall of prices, to enlarge her capacity for foreign
teade, to open wide the field of individual enterprise and compe
tition, and to say plaffily and ffistinctly that the countiy must
reUeve itseff from the embarrassments wffich it felt, by economy,
firugaUty, and renewed efforts of enterprise, — these appear to be
the general outlffie of the poUcy which England has pursued.
Mr. Chairman, I wffi now proceed to say a few words upon a
topic, but for the intioduction of which ffito this debate I shoffid
not have given the committee on this occasion the tiouble of
hearffig me. Some days ago, I beUeve it was when we were set
tUng the conteoversy between the oil-merchants and the taUow-
chandlers, the balance of trade made its appearance ffi debate, and
I must confess. Sir, that I spoke of it, or rather spoke to it, some
what freely and irreverently. I beUeve I used the hard names
which have been imputed to me, and I ffid it simply for the pur
pose of laying the spectie, and ffiiving it back to its tomb. Cer
taiffiy, Sir, when I caUed the old notion on this subject non
sense, I ffid not suppose that I shoffid offend any one, unless the
dead shoffid happen to hear me. All the Uving generation, I
took it for granted, woffid think the term very properly appUed.
In this, however, I was mistaken. The dead and the Uving rise
up together to call me to account, and I must defend myseff as
weU as I am able.
Let us ffiqtffie, then. Sir, what is meant by an unfavorable
bffiance of tiade, and what the argument is, ffiawn from that
source. By an unfavorable balance of tiade, I understand, is
meant that state of thffigs ffi which importation exceeds expor
tation. To apply it to our own case, if the value of goods im
ported exceed the value of those exported, then the balance of
tiade is said to be against us, ffiasmuch as we have run in debt
to the amount of this difference. Therefore it is said, that, if a
nation contffiue long in a commerce like tffis, it must be ren
dered absolutely bankrupt. It is in the conffition of a man that
buys more than he seUs ; and how can such a tiaffic be mam-
tamed without rffin ? Now, Sir, the whole faUacy of tffis argu
ment consists in supposing, that, whenever the value of imports

The Tariff 1 1 9
exceeds that of exports, a debt is necessarily created to the ex
tent of the difference, whereas, orffinarUy, the import is no more
than the result of the export, augmented in value by the labor
of tiansportation. The excess of imports over exports, in truth,
usuaUy shows the gains, not the losses, of tiade ; or, in a coun
tiy that not offiy buys and seUs goods, but employs ships in car
rying goods also, it shows the profits of commerce, and the earn
ings of navigation. Nothing is more certain than that, in the
usual comrse of thffigs, and taking a series of years together, the
value of our imports is the aggregate of our exports and our
freights. If the value of commodities imported in a given in
stance ffid not exceed the value of the outward cargo, with which
they were purchased, then it woffid be clear to every man's com
mon sense, that the voyage had not been profitable. If such com
moffities feU far short in value of the cost of the outward cargo,
then the voyage would be a very losing one ; and yet it woffid
present exactly that state of things, which, accorffing to the no
tion of a balance of tiade, can alone indicate a prosperous com
merce. On the other hand, if the return cargo were found to be
worth much more than the outward cargo, whUe the merchant,
having paid for the goods exported, and aU the expenses of the
voyage, finds a handsome sum yet in his hands, which he calls
profits, the balance of teade is stffi against him, and, whatever he
may thffik of it, he is in a very bad way. Although one inffi
vidual or aU individuals gain, the nation loses ; while all its cit
izens grow rich, the countiy grows poor. This is the doctiine
of the balance of tiade.
Allow me. Sir, to give an instance tending to show how un
accountably individuals deceive themselves, and imagine them
selves to be somewhat rapiffiy mending their conffition, while
they ought to be persuaded that, by that infaUible standard, the
balance of tiade, they are on the high road to rffin. Some years
ago, ffi better times than the present, a ship left one of the towns
of New England with 70,000 specie doUars. She proceeded to
Mocha, on the Red Sea, and there laid out these doUars in cof
fee, drugs, spices, and other articles procured in that market.
With this new cargo she proceeded to Europe ; two thirds of
it were sold in Holland for f 130,000, which the ship brought
back, and placed in the same bank from the vaffits of which she
had taken her original outfit. The other third was sent to the

I20 Speeches in Congress
ports of the Mediterranean, and produced a return of $ 25,000
in specie, and $ 15,000 in ItaUan merchandise. These sums
together make $ 170,000 imported, wffich is $ 100,000 more
than was exported, and is therefore proof of an unfavorable bal
ance of tiade, to that amount, ffi tffis adventure. We should
find no great difficulty. Sir, in paying off our balances, if this
were the nature of them aU.
The tiuth is, Mr. Chairman, that aU these obsolete and exploded
notions had their origffi in very mistaken ideas of the tiue nature
of commerce. Commerce is not a gambling among nations for a
stake, to be won by some and lost by others. It has not the ten
dency necessarily to impoverish one of the parties to it, whUe it
enriches the other ; aU parties gain, aU parties make profits, aU
parties grow rich, bythe operations of just and Uberal commerce.
If the world had but one cUme and but one soU ; if all men had
the same wants and the same means, on the spot of their exist
ence, to gratify those wants, — then, ffideed, what one obtffined
from the other by exchange would injure one party in the same
degree that it benefited the other ; then, indeed, there woffid be
some foundation for the balance of trade. But Providence has
disposed our lot much more kindly. We inhabit a various earth.
We have reciprocal wants, and reciprocal means for gratifying
one another's wants. This is the true origin of commerce, which
is nothing more than an exchange of eqffivalents, and, from the
rude barter of its primitive state, to the refined and complex
conffition ffi which we see it, its principle is uniformly the same ,
its only object being, in every stage, to produce that exchange of
commoffities between inffividuals and between nations which
shaU conduce to the advantage and to the happiness of both.
Commerce between nations has the same essential character
as commerce between ffiffividuals, or between parts of the same
nation. Cannot two inffividuals make an interchange of com
modities which shaU prove beneficial to both, or in wffich the
balance of tiade shall be in favor of both ? If not, the taUor and
the shoemaker, the farmer and the smith, have hitherto very
much mistmderstood their own interests. And with regard to
the internal trade of a countey, ffi which the same rffie woffid
apply as between nations, do we ever speak of such an inter
course as prejufficial to one side because it is usefffi to the oth
er? Do we ever hear that, because the intercourse between

The Tariff 121
New York and Albany is advantageous to one of those places,
it must therefore be ruinous to the other ?
May I be allowed. Sir, to read a passage on this subject from
the observations of a gentleman, in my opinion one of the most
clear and sensible writers and speakers of the age upon subjects
of this sort ? * " There is no political question on which the
prevalence of false principles is so general, as in what relates to
the nature of commerce and to the pretended balance of tiade ;
and there are few which have led to a greater number of prac
tical mistakes, attended with consequences extensively prejuffi
cial to the happiness of mankind. In this countiy, our Parlia
mentary proceedings, our pubUc documents, and the works of
several able and popffiar writers, have combined to propagate
the impression, that we are indebted for much of our riches to
what is called the balance of tiade." " Our true policy woffid
surely be to profess, as the object and guide of our commercial
system, that which every man who has stuffied the subject must
know to be the true principle of commerce, the interchange of
reciprocal and eqffivalent benefit. We may rest assured that it
is not in the nature of commerce to enrich one party at the ex
pense of the other. Tffis is a pm-pose at which, if it were prac
ticable, we ought not to aim ; and which, if we aimed at, we
coffid not accompUsh." These remarks, I beUeve, Sir, were writ
ten some ten or twelve years ago. They are in perfect accord
ance with the opinions advanced in more elaborate tieatises,
and now that the world has returned to a state of peace, and
commerce has resumed its natural channels, and ffifferent na
tions are enjoying, or seeking to enjoy, their respective portions
of it, aU see the justness of these ideas ; aU see, that, in this day
of knowledge and of peace, there can be no commerce between
nations but that wffich shaU benefit aU who are parties to it.
If it were necessary, Mr. Chairman, I might ask the attention of
the committee to refer to a document before us, on this subject of
the balance of tiade. It wffi be seen by reference to the accounts,
that, in the course of the last year, our total export to HoUand
exceeded two mUUons and a haff; our total import from the same
country was but seven hundred thousand doUars. Now, can any
man be wUd enough to make any inference from this as to the
? Mr. Huskisson, President of the English Board of Trade.

122 Speeches in Congress
gain or loss of our tiade with Holland for that year ? Our trade
with Russia for the same year produced a balance the other way ;
our import being two miUions, and our export but half a mffiion.
But this has no more tendency to show the Russian tiade a los
ing tiade, than the other statement has to show that the Dutch
tiade has been a gainfffi one. Neither of them, by itself, proves
any thing.
Springing out of this notion of a balance of trade, there
is another idea, w^hich has been much dwelt upon in the
course of this debate ; that is, that we ought not to buy of na
tions who do not buy of us ; for example, that the Russian tiade
is a trade ffisadvantageous to the country, and ought to be ffis-
couraged, because, in the ports of Russia, we buy more than we
sell. Now aUow me to observe, in the first place. Sir, that we
have no account showing how much we do seU in the ports of
Russia. Our official returns show us only what is the amount
of our direct teade with her ports. But then we aU know that
the proceeds of another portion of our exports go to the same
market, though ffidirectly. We send our own products, for ex
ample, to Cuba, or to Brazil ; we there exchange them for the
sugar and the coffee of those countries, and these articles we
carry to St. Petersburg, and there seU them Again ; our ex
ports to Holland and Hamburg are connected directly or indi
rectly with our imports from Russia. What difference does it
make, in sense or reason, whether a cargo of iron be bought at
St. Petersburg, by the exchange of a cargo of tobacco, or wheth
er the tobacco has been sold on the way, in a better market, in
a port of HoUand, the money remitted to England, and the iron
paid for by a bffi on London ? There might ffideed have been
an augmented freight, there might have been some saving of
commissions, if tobacco had been in brisk demand in the Rus
sian market. But stffi there is nothing to show that the whole
voyage may not have been highly profitable. That depends
upon the original cost of the article here, the amount of freight
and insurance to HoUand, the price obtained there, the rate of
exchange between HoUand and England, the expense, then, of
proceeffing to St. Petersburg, the price of iron there, the rate of
exchange between that place and England, the amount of freight
and insurance at home, and, finaUy, the value of the iron when
brought to our own market. These are the calcffiations wffich

The Tariff 123
determme the fortune of the adventure ; and nothing can be
judged of it, one way or the other, by the relative state of our
imports or exports with HoUand, England, or Russia.
I woffid not be understood to deny, that it may often be our
ffiterest to cffitivate a trade with countiies that require most of
such commodities as w^e can furnish, and which are capable
also of directly supplying our own wants. This is the original
and the simplest form of aU commerce, and is no doubt highly
beneficial. Some countiies are so situated, that commerce, in
this origmal form, or sometffing near it, may be aU that they
can, without considerable inconvenience, carry on. Otir tiade,
for example, with Madeira and the Western Islands has been
usefffi to the countiy, as furnishing a demand for some portion
of our agricffitural products, which probably could not have
been bought had we not received their products in return.
Countiies situated stffi farther from the great marts and high
ways of the commercial world may afford stffi stionger instan
ces of the necessity and utffity of conductffig commerce on the
originffi principle of barter, without much assistance from the
operations of creffit and exchange. AU I woffid be understood
to say is, that it by no means foUows that we can carry on noth
mg but a losffig trade with a countiy from which we receive
more of her products than she receives of ours. Since I was
supposed, the other day, ffi speakffig upon this subject, to ad
vance opiffions wffich not offiy this country ought to reject,
but wffich also other countries, and those the most ffistffiguished
for skffi and success ffi commercial intercourse, do reject, I wffi
ask leave to refer again to the ffiscussion which I ffist men
tioned ffi the EngUsh ParUament, relative to the foreign tiade
of that countiy. " With regard," says the mover * of the propo
sition, " to the argument employed agamst renewffig our inter
course with the North of Europe, namely, that those who sup
pUed us with timber from that quarter woffid not receive British
manufactures ffi return, it appeared to ffim futUe and unground
ed. If they ffid not send direct for our manufactures at home,
they woffid send for them to Leipsic and other fairs of Germa
ny. Were not the Russian and Polish merchants purchasers
there to a great amount ? But he woffid never adiffit the prin-
* The Marquess of Lansdowne.

124 Speeches in Congress
ciple, that a tiade was not profitable because we were obUged
to carry it on with the precious metals, or that we ought to re
nounce it, because our manufactures were not received by the
foreign nation in return for its produce. Whatever we received
must be paid for in the produce of our land and labor, directly
or circuitously, and he was glad to have the noble Earl's*
marked concurrence in this principle."
Referring ourselves agffin. Sir, to the analogies of common
life, no one would say that a farmer or a mechanic shoffid buy
only where he can do so by the exchange of his own produce, or
of his own manufacture. Such exchange may be often conven
ient ; and, on the other hand, the cash purchase may be often
more convenient. It is the same in the intercourse of nations.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker has placed this argument on very clear
grounds. It was said, in the early part of the debate, that, if we
cease to import EngUsh cotton fabrics, England wUl no long
er continue to purchase our cotton. To this Mr. Speaker re
pUed, with great force and justice, that, as she must have cotton
in large quantities, she wiU buy the article where she can find it
best and cheapest ; and that it would be qffite ridiculous in her,
manffiacturing as she stffi woffid be, for her own vast consump
tion and the consumption of miffions in other countiies, to reject
our uplands because we had learned to manufacture a part of
them for ourselves. Would it not be equaUy ridicffious in us, if
the commoffities of Russia were both cheaper and better sffited
to our wants than could be found elsew^here, to abstain from
commerce with her, because she wffi not receive in return other
commodities which we have to sell, but which she has no occa
sion to buy ?
Intimately connected. Sir, with this topic, is another which
has been brought ffito the debate ; I mean the evU so much com-
plaffied of, the exportation of specie. We hear gentlemen im
puting the loss of market at home to a want of money, and this
want of money to the exportation of the precious metals. We
hear the Inffia and Chffia tiade denounced, as a commerce con
ducted on our side, in a great measure, with gold and sUver.
These opinions. Sir, are clearly void of aU just foundation, and
* Lord Livercool.

The Tariff 125
we cannot too soon get rid of them. There are no shaUower
reasoners than those political and commercial writers who would
represent it to be the only true and gainful end of commerce, to
accumffiate the precious metals. These are articles of use, and
articles of merchandise, with this additional circumstance be-
longffig to them, that they are made, by the general consent
of nations, the standard by which the value of all other mer-
chanffise is to be estimated. In regard to weights and meas
ures, something ffiawn from external nature is made a com
mon standard, for the purposes of general conveffience; and
this is precisely the office performed by the precious metals,
ffi adffition to those uses to wffich, as metals, they are capa
ble of being appUed. There may be of these too much or
too Uttie in a countiy at a particffiar time, as there may be
of any other articles. When the market is overstocked with
them, as it often is, their exportation becomes as proper and as
usefffi as that of other commoffities, under similar circumstan
ces. We need no more repine, when the doUars which have
been brought here from South America are despatched to other
countries, than when coffee and sugar take the same ffirec
tion. We often deceive ourselves, by attributing to a scar
city of money that which is the result of other causes. In the
course of this debate, the honorable member from Pennsylvania*
has represented the countiy as fffil of every thing but money.
But tffis I take to be a rffistake. The agricultural products, so
abundant in Pennsylvania, wffi not, he says, seU for money ; but
they wffi seU for money as qffick as for any other article which
happens to be in demand. They wffi seU for money, for exam
ple, as easily as for coffee or for tea, at the prices which properly
belong to those articles. The mistake Ues in imputing that to
want of money which arises from want of demand. Men do
not buy wheat because they have money, but because they
want wheat. To decide whether money be plenty or not, that
is, whether there be a large portion of capital unemployed or
not, when the currency of a countiy is metaffic, we must look,
not offiy to the prices of commodities, but also to the rate of
ffiterest. A low rate of interest, a facUity of obtaining money
on loans, a ffisposition to invest in permanent stocks, all of
• Mr. Tod.

126 Speeches in Congress
which are proofs that money is plenty, may nevertheless often
denote a state not of the highest prosperity. They may, and
often do, show a want of employment for capital ; and the ac
cumulation of specie shows the same thing. We have no occa
sion for the precious metals as money, except for the purposes
of circulation, or rather of sustaining a safe paper circffiation.
And whenever there is a prospect of a profitable investment
abroad, aU the gold and sUver, except what these purposes re-
qffire, wffi be exported. For the same reason, if a demand exist
abroad for sugar and coffee, whatever amount of those articles
might exist in the countiy, beyond the wants of its own con
sumption, woffid be sent abroad to meet that demand.
Besides, Sir, how shoffid it ever occur to any body, that we
shoffid continue to export gold and sUver, if we ffid not continue
to import them also ? If a vessel take our own products to the
Havana, or elsewhere, exchange them for dollars, proceed to Chi
na, exchange them for sUks and teas, bring these last to the ports
of the Meffiten-anean, sell them there for doUars, and retm-n to the
United States ; tffis would be a voyage resulting in the importa
tion of the precious metals. But if she had returned from Cuba,
and the doUars obtained there had been shipped ffirect from the
United States to China, the China goods sold in Holland, and
the proceeds brought home in the hemp and iron of Russia, this
would be a voyage in which they were exported. Yet every
body sees that both might be equaUy beneficial to the individ
ual and to the public. I beUeve, Sir, that, in point of fact, we
have enjoyed great benefit in our trade with India and China,
from the Uberty of going from place to place aU over the world,
without being obUged in the mean time to return home, a Uberty
not heretofore enjoyed by the private tiaders of England, in
regard to India and China. Suppose the American ship to be
at Brazil, for example ; she coffid proceed with her dollars direct
to India, and, in return, coffid ffistribute her cargo in all the
various ports of Europe or America ; whUe an English ship, if
a private tiader, being at BrazU, must ffist return to England,
and then coffid offiy proceed in the direct Une from England to
India. This advantage our countiymen have not been back
ward to improve ; and in the debate to which I have already so
often referred, it was stated, not without some complaint of the
inconveffience of exclusion, and the natural sluggishness of mo-

The Tariff 127
nopoly, that American ships were at that moment fitting out in
the Thames, to supply France, HoUand, and other counti-ies on
the Continent, with tea ; whUe the East Inffia Company woffid
not do this of themselves, nor allow any of their feUow-countey-
men to do it for them.
There is yet another subject, Mr. Chairman, upon which I
woffid wish to say something, if I might presume upon the con
tinued patience of the committee. We hear sometimes in the
House, and continuaUy out of it, of the rate of exchange, as
beffig one proof that we are on the downward road to rffin.
Mr. Speaker ffimseff has adverted to that topic, and I am afraid
that Ms authority may give credit to opinions clearly unfounded,
and which lead to very false and erroneous conclusions. Sir,
let us see what the facts are. Exchange on England has re
centiy risen one or one and a half per cent., partly owing, per
haps, to the mtioduction of this bill into Congress. Before this
recent rise, and for the last six months, I understand its average
may have been about seven and a half per cent, advance. Now,
supposffig this to be the real, and not merely, as it is, the nomi
nal, par of exchange between us and England, what woffid it
prove ? Notffing, except that funds were wanted by American
citizens ffi England for commercial operations, to be carried on
either Ui England or elsewhere. It would not necessarily show
that we were indebted to England ; for, if we had occasion to
pay debts ffi Russia or HoUand, funds in England woffid natu
raUy enough be reqirired for such a purpose. Even if it ffid
prove that a balance was due England at the moment, it woffid
have no tendency to explain to us whether our commerce with
England had been profitable or unprofitable.
But it is not teue, in point of fact, that the real price of ex
change is seven and a haff per cent, advance, nor, indeed, that
there is at the present moment any advance at aU. That is to
say, it is not tiue that merchants wUl give such an advance, or
any advance, for money in England, beyond what they would give
for the same amount, ffi the same currency, here. It wUl stiike
every one who reflects upon it, that, if there were a real ffiffer
ence of seven and a haff per cent., money would be immediately
sffipped to England; because the expense of transportation
woffid be far less than that difference. Or commoffities of tiade

128 Speeches in Congress
woffid be shipped to Europe, and the proceeds remitted to Eng
land. If it coffid so happen, that American merchants shoffid
be wUUng to pay ten per cent, premium for money in England,
or, in other words, that a real ffifference to that amount ffi the
exchange shoffid exist, its effects woffid be immediately seen in
new shipments of our own commodities to Europe, because this
state of things would create new motives. A cargo of tobacco,
for example, might sell at Amsterdam for the same price as be
fore; but if its proceeds, when remitted to London, were ad
vanced, as they woffid be in such case, ten per cent, by the state
of exchange, this woffid be so much added to the price, and
woffid operate therefore as a motive for the exportation; and in
this way national balances are, and always wffi be, adjusted.
To form any accurate idea of the tiue state of exchange be
tween two countiies, we must look at their currencies, and
compare the quantities of gold and silver which they may re
spectively represent. This usuaUy explains the state of the ex
changes ; and this wffi satisfactorUy account for the apparent
advance now existing on bffis drawn on England. The EngUsh
standard of value is gold ; with us that office is performed by
gold, and by sUver also, at a fixed relation to each other. But
our estimate of sUver is rather higher, in proportion to gold, than
most nations give it ; it is higher, especiaUy, than in England, at
the present moment. The consequence is, that sUver, which re
mains a legal currency with us, stays here, whUe the gold has
gone abroad ; verifying the universal tenth, that, if two cm-rencies
be aUowed to exist, of ffifferent values, that which is cheapest wffi
fiU up the whole circffiation. For as much gold as wffi suffice
to pay here a debt of a given amount, we can buy In England
more sUver than woffid be necessary to pay the same debt here ;
and from tffis ffifference ffi the value of sUver arises wholly or in
a great measure the present apparent ffifference in exchange.
Spanish doUars seU now in England for four shUUngs and nffie
pence sterUng per ounce, equal to one doUar and six cents. By
our standard the same ounce is worth one dollar and sixteen
cents, being a ffifference of about ffine per cent. The true par
of exchange, therefore, is nine per cent. If a merchant here pay
one hundred Spanish dollars for a bffi on England, at nominal
par, in sterUng money, that is for a bffi of £ 22 10s., the pro
ceeds of this bffi, when paid in England in the legal currency.

The Tariff 129
wffi there purchase, at the present price of sUver, one hunffied
and nine Spanish doUars. Therefore, if the nominal advance
on EngUsh bills do not exceed nine per cent., the real exchange
is not against this countiy ; in other words, it does not show
that there is any pressing or particular occasion for the remit
tance of funds to England.
As Uttle can be inferred from the occasional transfer of United
States stock to England. Considering the interest paid on our
stocks, the entire stabffity of our credit, and the accumffiation of
capital in England, it is not at aU wonderful that ffivestments
shoffid occasionaUy be made in our funds. As a sort of coun-
tervaiUng fact, it may be stated that EngUsh stocks are now
actuaUy held in tffis countey, though probably not to any con
siderable amount.
I wffi now proceed, Sfr, to state some objections of a more
generffi nature, to the course of Mr. Speaker's observations.
He seems to me to argue the question as if aU domestic ffi-
dustiy were confined to the production of manufactured articles ;
as ff the employment of our own capital and our own labor, in
the occupations of commerce and navigation, were not as em
phaticaUy domestic industiy as any other occupation. Some
other gentlemen, ffi the course of the debate, have spoken of the
price paid for every foreign manufactured article as so much
given for the encouragement of foreign labor, to the prejudice of
our own. But is not every such article the product of our own
labor as tiffiy as ff we had manufactured it ourselves? Our
labor has earned it, and paid the price for it. It is so much
added to the stock of national wealth. If the commodity were
doUars, nobody woffid doubt the truth of this remark ; and it is
precisely as correct in its appUcation to any other commoffity as
to sUver. One man makes a yard of cloth at home ; another
raises agricffitmral products and buys a yard of imported cloth.
Both these are equaUy the earnings of domestic industiy, and
the only questions that arise in the case are two : the first is,
wffich is the best mode, under aU the circumstances, of obtain
ing the article ; the second is, how far this ffist question is
proper to be decided by government, and how far it is proper to
be left to individual discretion. There is no foundation for the
ffistinction which attributes to certaffi employments the pecuUar

130 Speeches in Congress
appeUation of American industiy ; and it is, in my judgment, ex
tiemely unwise to attempt such ffiscriminations.
We are asked. What nations have ever attained eminent
prosperity without encouraging manufactures? I may ask,
What nation ever reached the Uke prosperity without promot
ing foreign tiade? I regard these interests as closely con
nected, and am of opinion that it shoffid be our aim to cause
them to flourish together. I know it would be very easy to
promote manufactures, at least for a time, but probably for a
short time only, if we might act in disregard of other interests.
We could cause a sudden transfer of capital, and a violent
change ffi the pursuits of men. We coffid exceedingly benefit
some classes by these means. But what, then, becomes of the
interests of others ? The power of coUecting revenue by duties
on imports, and the habit of the government of coUecting almost
its whole revenue in that mode, wUl enable us, without exceed
ing the bounds of moderation, to give great advantages to those
classes of manufactures which we may think most usefffi to pro
mote at home. What I object to is the immoderate use of the
power, — exclusions and prohibitions ; aU of which, as I think,
not only ffiterrupt the pursuits of inffividuals, with great injury
to themselves and little or no benefit to the countiy, but also
often divert our own labor, or, as it may very properly be called,
our own domestic industiy, from those occupations in which it
is weU employed and well paid, to others in which it wiU be
worse employed and worse paid. For my part, I see very Uttle
reUef to those who are Ukely to be deprived of thefr employ
ments, or who find the prices of the commoffities which they
need, raised, in any of the alternatives which Mr. Speaker has
presented. It is nothing to say that they may, ff they choose,
contffiue to buy the foreign article ; the answer is, the price is
augmented: nor that they may use the domestic article; the
price of that also is fficreased. Nor can they supply themselves
by the substitution of thefr own fabric. How can the agricul
turist make his own fron ? How can the sffip-owner grow his
own hemp ?
But I have a yet stionger objection to the course of Mr.
Speaker's reasoning ; wffich is, that he leaves out of the case aU
that has been afready done for the protection of manufactures,
and argues the question as if those interests were now for the

The Tariff 131
first time to receive ffid from duties on imports. I can harffiy
express the surprise I feel that Mr. Speaker shoffid fall into the
common mode of expression used elsewhere, and ask if we wffi
give our manufacturers no protection. Sfr, look to the histoi y
of our laws; look to the present state of our laws. Consider
that our whole revenue, with a triffing exception, is coUected
at the custom-house, and always has been ; and then say what
propriety there is ffi caUing on the government for protection, as
ii no protection had heretofore been afforded. The real question
before us, in regard to all the important clauses of the bffi, is
not whether we wffi lay duties, but whether we wffi augment
duties. The demand is for something more than exists, and
yet it is pressed as if nothffig existed. It is whoUy forgotten
that fron and hemp, for example, afready pay a very heavy and
burdensome duty ; and, in short, from the general tenor of Mr.
Speaker's observations, one woffid infer that, hitherto, we had
rather taxed our own manufactures than fostered them by taxes
on those of other countiies. We hear of the fatal policy of the
tariff of 1816 ; and yet the law of 1816 was passed avoweffiy for
the benefit of manufacturers, and, with very few exceptions, im
posed on imported articles very great additions of tax ; in some
important mstances, ffideed, amountffig to a prohibition.
Sfr, on this subject, it becomes us at least to understand the
real posture of the question. Let us not suppose that we are
beginning the protection of manufactures, by duties on imports.
What we are asked to do is, to render those duties much higher,
and therefore, instead of deaUng ffi general commendations of
the benefits of protection, the friends of the biU, I think, are
bound to make out a fafr case for each of the manufactures
wffich they propose to benefit. The government has already
done much for thefr protection, and it ought to be presumed to
have done enough, unless it be shown, by the facts and consider
ations appUcable to each, that there is a necessity for doing more.
On the general question, Sfr, aUow me to ask if the doctiine
of prohibition, as a general doctrine, be not preposterous. Sup
pose aU nations to act upon it ; they would be prosperous, then,
accorffing to the argument, precisely in the proportion in which
they aboUshed intercourse with one another. The less of mu
tual commerce the better, upon this hypothesis. Protection and
encouragement may be, and doubtless are, sometimes, wise and

132 Speeches in Congress
beneficial, ff kept within proper Umits ; but when carried to an
extiavagant height, or the point of prohibition, the absurd char
acter of the system manffests itseff. Mr. Speaker has referred to
the late Emperor Napoleon, as having attempted to naturalize
the manufacture of cotton in France. He did not cite a more
extiavagant part of the projects of that rffier, that is, his attempt
to naturaUze the growth of that plant itself, in France ; whereas,
we have understood that considerable ffistiicts in the South of
France, and ffi Italy, of rich and productive lands, were at one
time withdrawn from profitable uses, and devoted to rffising, at
great expense, a Uttle bad cotton. Nor have we been referred to
the attempts, under the same system, to make sugar and coffee
from common cuUnary vegetables ; attempts which served to
fiU the prmt-shops of Europe, and to show us how easy is the
teansition from what some think subUme to that which aU ad
mit to be rifficffious. The folly of some of these projects has
not been surpassed, nor harffiy equaUed, unless it be by the phi
losopher in one of the satires of Swift, who so long labored to
extiact sunbeams from cucumbers.
The poverty and unhappiness of Spain have been attiibuted
to the want of protection to her own industry. If by this it
be meant that the poverty of Spain is owing to bad government
and bad laws, the remark is, in a great measure, just. But these
very laws are bad because they are restiictive, partial, and pro
hibitory. K proffibition were protection, Spain woffid seem to
have had enough of it. Nothing can exceed the barbarous ri-
giffity of her colonial system, or the foUy of her early commercial
regffiations. Unenlightened and bigoted legislation, the mffiti-
tude of holidays, miserable roads, monopoUes on the part of gov
ernment, restrictive laws, that ought long since to have been ab
rogated, are generaUy, and I beUeve tiffiy, reckoned the principal
causes of the bad state of the productive industiy of Spain. Any
partial improvement in her conffition, or increase of her prosper
ity, has been, ffi aU cases, the resffit of relaxation, and the aboU
tion of what was intended for favor and protection.
In short, Sfr, the general sense of this age sets, with a stiong
current, in favor of freedom of commercial intercourse, and un
restiained ffiffividual action. Men yield up thefr notions of
monopoly and restiiction, as they yield up other prejuffices,
slowly and reluctantly ; but they cannot withstand the general
tide of opiffion.

The Tariff 133
Let me now ask. Sir, what reUef this bffi proposes to some
of those great and essential interests of the countiy, the condi
tion of which has been referred to as proof of national distress ;
and which conffition, although I do not think it makes out a
case of distress, yet does ffidicate depression.
And first, Sfr, as to our foreign tiade. Mr. Speaker has stated
that there has been a considerable faffing off in the tonnage
employed in that trade. This is tiue, lamentably tiue. In my
opiffion, it is one of those occurrences which ought to arrest our
immeffiate, our deep, our most earnest attention. What does
this bffi propose for its relief? It proposes nothing but new
burdens. It proposes to ffimiffish its employment, and it pro
poses, at the same time, to augment its expense, by subjecting
it to heavier taxation. Sfr, there is no interest, in regard to
wffich a stionger case for protection can be made out, than the
navigating interest. Whether we look at its present conffition,
wffich is admitted to be depressed, the number of persons con
nected with it, and dependent upon it for thefr daUy bread, oi
its importance to the country in a political point of view, it
has claims upon our attention which cannot be surpassed. But
what do we propose to do for it ? I repeat, Sfr, simply to bur
den and to tax it. By a statement which I have afready sub
mitted to the committee, it appears that the shipping interest
pays, annuaUy, more than half a miffion of doUars in duties on
articles used ffi the constiuction of ships. We propose to add
nearly, or qffite, fifty per cent, to this amount, at the very mo
ment that we appeal to the langffisffing state of this interest
as a proof of national ffistiess. Let it be remembered that our
shippffig employed in foreign commerce has, at tffis moment.
not the shadow of government protection. It goes abroad upon
the wide sea to make its own way, and earn its own bread, in
a professed competition with the whole world. Its resources are
its own frugaUty, its own skffi, its own enterprise. It hopes to
succeed, ff it shaU succeed at aU, not by extiaorffinary aid of
government, but by patience, vigUance, and toU. This right arm
of the nation's safety stiengthens its own muscle by its own
efforts, and by unwearied exertion in its own defence becomes
stiong for the defence of the countiy.
No one acquamted with this interest can deny that its situa
tion, at this moment, is extiemely critical. We have left it

134 Speeches in Congress
ffitherto to maintaffi itseff or perish; to swim ff it can, and to
sink if it must. But at this moment of its apparent stiuggle,
can w^e as men, can we as patiiots, add another stone to the
weight that threatens to carry it down ? Sfr, there is a Umit to
human power, and to human effort. I know the commercial
marine of this countiy can do almost every thing, and bear
almost every thing. Yet some things are impossible to be done,
and some burdens may be impossible to be borne ; and as it
was the last ounce that broke the back of the camel, so the last
tax, although it were even a smaU one, may be decisive as to the
power of our marine to sustain the conffict ffi which it is now
engaged with aU the commercial nations on the globe.
Again, Mr. Chairman, the faUures and the bankruptcies which
have taken place in our large cities have been mentioned as
proving the little success attending commerce, and its general
decUne. But this bffi has no balm for those wounds. It is very
remarkable, that when the losses and ffisasters of certain manu
facturers, those of fron, for instance, are mentioned, it is done for
the purpose of invoking aid for the ffisteessed. Not so with the
losses and ffisasters of commerce ; these last are narrated, and
not unfrequently much exaggerated, to prove the rffinous nature
of the employment, and to show that it ought to be abandoned,
and the capital engaged ffi it turned to other objects.
I it has been often said, Sfr, that our manufacturers have to
contend, not only against the natural advantages of those who
produce simUar articles in foreign countiies, but also against the
action of foreign governments, who have great political interest
in ffiffing thefr own manufactures to suppress ours. But have
not these governments as great an interest to cripple our marine,
by preventing the gro-wth of our commerce and navigation ?
What is it that makes us the object of the highest respect, or
the most suspicious jealousy, to foreign states? What is it
that most enables us to take high relative rank among the na
tions? I need not say that tffis resffits, more than from any
thing else, from that quantity of military power' wffich we can
cause to be water-borne, and from that extent of commerce
which we are able to maintffin throughout the world. \
Mr. Chafrman, I am conscious of having detained the com
mittee much too long with these observations. My apology for

The Tariff 135
now proceeffing to some remarks upon the particffiar clauses of
the bUl is, that, representing a distiict at once commercial and
highly manufacturmg, and being caUed upon to vote upon a bffi
containing provisions so numerous and so various, I am natu
raUy desirous to state as weU what I approve, as what I would
reject. The first section proposes an augmented duty upon wooUen
manufactures. This, if it were unqualified, woffid no doubt be
desirable to those who are engaged in that business. I have
myseff presented a petition from the wooUen manufacturers of
Massachusetts, praying an augmented ad valorem duty upon
imported wooUen cloths ; and I am prepared to accede to that
proposition, to a reasonable extent. But then this bffi proposes,
also, a very ffigh duty upon imported wool ; and, as far as I can
learn, a majority of the manufacturers are at least extiemely
doubtful whether, taking these two provisions together, the state
of the law is not better for them now than it would be if this
bffi shoffid pass. It is said, this tax on raw wool wffi benefit
the agricffiturist ; but I know it to be the opinion of some of
the best iffiormed of that class, that it wffi do them more hurt
than good. They fear it wffi check the manufacturer, and con
sequently check ffis demand for thefr article. The argument is,
that a certain quantity of coarse wool, cheaper than we can
possibly furnish, is necessary to enable the maniffacturer to carry
on the general business, and that ff this cannot be had, the con
sequence wffi be, not a greater, but a less, manufacture of our
own wool. I am aware that very inteffigent persons differ upon
this point ; but if we may safely infer from that difference of
opffiion, that the proposed benefit is at least doubtful, it woffid
be prudent perhaps to abstain from the experiment. Certain
it is, that the same reasoning has been employed, as I have
before stated, on the same subject, when a renewed appUcation
was made to the EngUsh Parliament to repeal the duty on im
ported wool, I beUeve scarcely two months ago ; those who sup
ported the appUcation pressing urgently the necessity of an unre
stricted use of the cheap, imported raw material, with a view to
supply with coarse cloths the markets of warm cUmates, such
as those of Egypt and Turkey, and especiaUy a vast newly cre
ated demand in the South American states.
As to the manufactures of cotton, it is agreed, I beUeve, that

136 Speeches in Congress
they are generaUy successful. It is understood that the present
existing duty operates pretty much as a prohibition over those
descriptions of fabrics to which it appUes. The proposed altera
tion woffid probably enable the American manufacturer to com
mence competition with higher-priced fabrics ; and so, perhaps,
woffid an augmentation less than is here proposed. I consider
the cotton manufactures not only to have reached, but to have
passed, the point of competition. I regard thefr success as cer
taffi, and thefr growth as rapid as the most impatient could weU
expect. If, however, a provision of the nature of that recom
mended here were thought necessary, to commence new opera
tions in the same Une of manufacture, I shoffid cheerfffily agree
to it, if it were not at the cost of sacrfficing other great interests
of the countiy. I need harffiy say, that whatever promotes the
cotton and wooUen manufactures promotes most important in
terests of my constituents. They have a great stake in the suc
cess of those estabUshments, and, as far as those manufactures
are concerned, woffid be as much benefited by the provisions of
this bffi as any part of the community. It is obvious, too, I
shoffid think, that, for some considerable time, manufactures of
this sort, to whatever magnitude they may rise, wiU be princi
paUy established in those parts of the country where population
is most dense, capital most abundant, and where the most suc-
cessfffi beginnings have afready been made.
But if these be thought to be advantages, they are greatly
counterbalanced by other advantages enjoyed by other portions
of the country. I cannot but regard the situation of the West
as ffighly favorable to human happiness. It offers, in the abun
dance of its new and fertUe lands, such assurances of permanent
property and respectability to the industrious, it enables them to
lay such sure foundations for a competent provision for their
famiUes, it makes such a nation of freeholders, that it need not
envy the happiest and most prosperous of the manufacturing
communities. We may talk as we wffi of weU-fed and well-
clothed day-laborers or journeymen ; they are not, after aU, to be
compared, either for happiness or respectabffity, with him who
sleeps under ffis own roof and cultivates his own fee-simple in
heritance. With respect to the proposed duty on glass, I would observe,
tliat, upon the best means of judging which I possess, I am of

The Tariff

37

opiffion that the chafrman of the committee is right in stating
that there is in effect a bounty upon the exportation of the Brit
ish article. I think it entfrely proper, therefore, to raise our own
duty by such an amount as shall be eqffivalent to that bounty.
And here, Mr. Chafrman, before proceeding to those parts of
the bffi to wffich I most strenuously object, I wUl be so pre
sumptuous as to take up a chaUenge which Mr. Speaker has
thrown down. He has asked us, in a tone of interrogatory in
dicative of the feeUng of anticipated triumph, to mention any
country in which manufactures have flourished without the aid
of prohibitory laws. He has demanded if it be not poUcy, pro
tection, ay, and prohibition, that have carried other states to the
height of thefr prosperity, and whether any one has succeeded
with such tame and inert legislation as ours. Sfr, I am ready
to answer this inqufry.
There is a countiy, not undistingffished among the nations, in
which the progress of manufactures has been far more rapid
than ffi any other, and yet unaided by prohibitions or unnatural
restrictions. That countey, the happiest which the sun shines
on, is our own.
The wooUen manufactm-es of England have existed from the
early ages of the monarchy. Provisions designed to aid and
foster them are ffi the black-letter statutes of the Edwards and
the Henrys. Ours, on the conteary, are but of yesterday ; and
yet, with no more than the protection of existing laws, they are
afready at the point of close and promisffig competition. Sfr,
nothffig is more unphUosophical than to refer us, on these sub
jects, to the poUcy adopted by other nations in a very different
state of society, or to iffier that w^hat was judged expedient by
them, in thefr early history, must also be expedient for us, in this
early part of our own. This would be reckoning our age chron-
ologicaUy, and estimating our advance by our number of years ;
when, in truth, we shoffid regard only the state of society, the
knowledge, the skill, the capital, and the enterprise which belong
to our times. We have been tiansferred from the stock of Eu -
rope, in a comparatively enUghtened age, and our civiUzation
and improvement date as far back as her own. Her original
history is also our original history ; and if, since the moment of
separation, she has gone ahead of us in some respects, it may
be said, without violating tiuth, that we have kept up in others,

138 Speeches in Congress
and, in others again, are head ourselves. We are to legislate,
then, with regard to the present actual state of society ; and our
own experience shows us, that, commencing manufactures at the
present higffiy enUghtened and emffious moment, we need not
resort to the clumsy helps with which, in less auspicious times,
governments have sought to enable the ingenffity and industry
of thefr people to hobble along.
The EngUsh cotton manufactures began about the com
mencement of the last reign. Ours can harffiy be sffid to have
commenced; with any earnestness, untU the appUcation of the
power-loom, ffi 1814, not more than ten years ago. Now, Sfr, I
harffiy need again speak of its progress, its present extent, or its
assurance of future effiargement. In some sorts of fabrics we
are afready exporters, and the products of our factories are, at this
moment, in the South American markets. We see, then, what
can be done without prohibition or extraorffinary protection, be
cause we see what has been done ; and I venture to predict,
that, in a few years, it wffi be thought wonderfffi that these
branches of manufactures, at least, shoffid have been thought to
require adffitional aid from government.
Mr. Chairman, the best apology for laws of prohibition and
laws of monopoly wffi be found in that state of society, not only
unenUghtened but sluggish, in which they are most generally
established. Private industry, in those days, requfred stiong
provocatives, which governments were seekffig to administer by
these means. Sometffing was wanted to actuate and stimffiate
men, and the prospects of such profits as would, ffi our times,
excite unbounded competition, woffid hardly move the sloth of
former ages. In some instances, no doubt, these laws produced
an effect, which, in that period, woffid not have taken place
without them. But our age is of a whoUy different character,
and its legislation takes another turn. Society is fuU of excite
ment; competition comes in place of monopoly; and intelli
gence and industiy ask offiy for fafr play and an open field.
Profits, indeed, in such a state of things, wiU be smaU, but they
wffi be extensively diffused; prices wffi be low, and the great
body of the people prosperous and happy. It is worthy of re
mark, that, from the operation of these causes, commercial
wealth, while it is increased beyond calculation in its general
aggregate, is, at the same time, broken and diminished ffi its

The Tariff 139
subffivisions. Commercial prosperity shoffid be judged of, there-
fore, rather from the extent of tiade, than from the magnitude of
its apparent profits. It has been remarked, that Spain, certain
ly one of the poorest nations, made very great profits on the
amount of her ti-ade ; but with little other benefit than the en
riching of a few inffividuals and companies. Profits to the
EngUsh merchants engaged in the Levant and Turkey tiade
were formerly very great, and there were richer merchants in
England some centuries ago, considering the comparative value
of money, than at the present highly commercial period. When
the ffiminution of profits arises from the extent of competition,
it infficates rather a salutary than an injurious change.*
The tiue course then, Sfr, for us to pursue, is, in my opinion,
to consider what our situation is ; what our means are ; and
how they can be best appUed. What amount of population
have we in comparison with our extent of soU, what amount of
capitffi, and labor at what price ? As to skffi, knowledge, and
enterprise, we may safely take it for granted that in these par-
ticffiars we are on an equaUty with others. Keeping these con
siderations in view, allow me to examine two or three of those
provisions of the bffi to which I feel the strongest objections.
To begm with the article of fron. Our whole annual con
sumption of this article is supposed by the chafrman of the com-
mittee to be forty-eight or fifty thousand tons. Let us suppose
the latter. The amount of our own manufacture he estimates,
I think, at seventeen thousand tons. The present duty on the
imported article is $ 15 per ton, and as this duty causes, of
course, an eqffivalent augmentation of the price of the home
manufacture, the whole increase of price is equal to $ 750,000
annually. Tffis sum we pay on a raw material, and on an ab
solute necessary of Ufe. The bffi proposes to raise the duty from
f 15 to $ 22.50 per ton, wffich would be equal to $ 1,125,000 on
the whole annual consumption. So that, suppose the point of
* " The present equable diffusion of moderate wealth cannot be better illus
trated, than by remarking that in this age many palaces and superb mansions
have been pulled down, or converted to other purposes, while none have been
erected on a like scale. The numberless baronial castles and mansions, in all
parts of England, now in ruins, may all be adduced as examples of the decrease
of inordinate wealth. On the other hand, the multiplication of commodious
dwellings for the upper and middle classes of society, and the increased comforts
of all ranks, exhibit a picture of individual happiness, unknown in any other age. "
— Sir G. Blane' s Letter to Lord Spencer, in 1800.

140 Speeches in Congress
prohibition which is ffimed at by some gentlemen to be attained,
the consumers of the ai-ticle woffid pay this last-mentioned sum
every year to the producers of it, over and above the price at
which they coffid supply themselves with the same article from
other sources. There woffid be no mitigation of this burden,
except from the prospect, whatever that might be, that fron
woffid faU in value, by domestic competition, after the importa
tion should be prohibited. It wffi be easy, I think, to show that
it cannot faU ; and supposing for the present that it shaU not, the
resffit wffi be, that we shaU pay annuaUy the sum of $ 1,125,000,
constantly augmented, too, by increased consumption of the ar
ticle, to support a business that cannot support itself.
It is of no consequence to the argument, that this sum is ex
pended at home ; so it would be ff we taxed the people to sup
port any other useless and expensive estabUshment, to buUd
another Capitol, for example, or incur an unnecessary expense
of any sort. The question stiU is. Are the money, time, and
labor well laid out ffi these cases ? The present price of fron at
Stockholm, I am assured by importers, is $ 53 per ton on board,
$ 48 in the yard before loading, and probably not far from $ 40
at the mines. Freight, insurance, &c., may be fafrly estimated
at f 15, to which add our present duty of f 15 more, and these
two last sums, together with the cost on board at Stockholm,
give $ 83 as the cost of Swedes fron in our market. In fact, it
is said to have been sold last year at % 81.50 to f 82 per ton.
We perceive, by this statement, that the cost of the iron is
doubled in reaching us from the mine in which it is produced.
In other words, our present duty, with the expense of tiansporta
tion, gives an advantage to the American over the foreign man-
ffiacturer of one hundred per cent. Why, then, cannot the fron
be manffiactured at home ? Our ore is said to be as good, and
some of it better. It is under our feet, and the chafrman of the
committee teUs us that it might be wrought by persons who
otherwise wffi not be employed. Why, then, is it ncl; wrought ?
Nothffig coffid be more sure of constant sale. It is not an arti
cle of changeable fashion, but of absolute, permanent necessity,
and such, therefore, as woffid always meet a steady demand.
Sfr, I tffink it woffid be weU for the chafrman of the committee
to revise his premises, for I am persuaded that there is an ingre-
ffient properly belonging to the calcffiation which he has mis-

The Tariff 141
stated or omitted. Swedes fron in England pays a duty, 1
thmk, of about $ 27 per ton ; yet it is imported in considerable
quantities, notwithstanffing the vast capital, the exceUent coal,
and, more important than all perhaps, the highly improved state
of inland navigation in England ; although I am aware that the
EngUsh use of Swedes fron may be thought to be owing in
some degree to its superior quality.
Sfr, the tiue explanation of this appears to me to lie in the
ffifferent prices of labor; and here I apprehend is the grand
mistake in the argument of the chafrman of the committee. He
says it woffid cost the nation, as a nation, nothing, to make our
ore into fron. Now, I think it would cost us precisely that
which we can worst afford ; that is, great labor. Although bar-
fron is very properly considered a raw material in respect to its
various future uses, yet, as bar-iron, the principal ingredient in
its cost is labor. Of manual labor, no nation has more than a
certaffi quantity, nor can it be fficreased at AviU. As to some
operations, indeed, its place may be suppUed by machinery ; but
there are other services wffich machinery cannot perform for it,
and which it must perform for itseff. A most important ques
tion for every nation, as weU as for every individual, to propose
to itseff, is, how it can best apply that quantity of labor which
it is able to perform. Labor is the great producer of wealth ;
it moves all other causes. If it caU machinery to its aid, it is
stffi employed, not only in using the machinery, but in making
it. Now, with respect to the quantity of labor, as we aU know,
different nations are ffifferently cfrcumstanced. Some need,
more than any thing, work for hands, others requfre hands for
work ; and if we ourselves are not absolutely in the latter class,
we are stffi most fortunately very near it. I cannot find that we
have those iffie hands, of which the chafrman of the committee
speaks. The price of labor is a conclusive and unanswerable
refutation of that idea ; it is known to be higher with us than in
any other civilized state, and this is the greatest of all proofs of
general happiness. Labor ffi this country is independent and
proud. It has not to ask the pationage of capital but capital
soUcits the aid of labor. This is the general truth in regard to
the conffition of our whole popffiation, although in the large
cities there are doubtiess many exceptions. The mere capacity
to labor in common agricultural employments, gives to our

142 Speeches in Congress
young men the assurance of independence. We have been
asked, Sfr, by the chafrman of the committee, in a tone of some
pathos, whether we wffi aUow to the serfs of Russia and Swe
den the benefit of making fron for us. Let me inform the gen
tleman, Sfr, that those same serfs do not earn more than seven
cents a day, and that they work in these mines for that compen
sation because they are serfs. And let me ask the gentieman
further, whether we have any labor in tffis countiy that cannot
be better employed than in a business which does not yield the
laborer more than seven cents a day ? This, it appears to me,
is the tiue question for our consideration. There is no reason
for saying that we wiU work fron because we have ' mountams
that contain the ore. We might for the same reason ffig among
our rocks for the scattered grains of gold and sUver which might
be found there. The true inquiry is. Can we produce the article
in a useful state at the same cost, or nearly at the same cost, or
at any reasonable approximation towards the same cost, at which
we can import it ?
Some general estimates of the price and profits of labor, in
those countiies from which we import our fron, might be formed
by comparing the reputed products of different mines, and thefr
prices, with the number of hands employed. The mines of
Danemora are said to yield about 4,000 tons, and to employ in
the mines twelve hunffied workmen. Suppose this to be worth
$ 50 per ton ; any one wiU find by computation, that the whole
product would not pay, in this countiy, for one quarter part of
the necessary labor. The whole export of Sweden was esti
mated, a few years ago, at 400,000 ship pounds, or about 54,000
tons. Comparing this product with the number of workmen
usuaUy supposed to be employed in the mines which produce
iron for exportation, the result wffi not greatly ffiffer from the
foregoing. These estimates are general, and might not conduct
us to a precise resffit ; but we know, from inteUigent teaveUers,
and eyewitnesses, that the price of labor in the Swedish mines
does not exceed seven cents a day.*
* The price of labor in Russia may be pretty well collected from Tooke's
"View of the Russian Empire." "The workmen in the mines and the foun
deries are, indeed, all called master-people ; but they distinguish themselves into
masters, under-masters, apprentices, delvers, servants, carriers, washers, and
separators. In proportion to their ability their wages are regulated, which pro-
need from fifteen to upwards of thirty roubles per annum. The provisions which

The Tariff

[43

The true reason, Sir, why it is not our policy to compel our
citizens to manufactm-e our own iron, is, that they are far better
employed. It is an unproductive business, and they are not
poor enough to be obliged to foUow it. If we had more of pov
erty, more of misery, and something of servitude, if we had an
ignorant, iffie, starving popffiation, we might set up for fron
makers against the world.
The committee wffi take notice, Mr. Chafrman, that, under
our present duty, together with the expense of teansportation,
our manufacturers are able to supply thefr own immeffiate
neighborhood ; and tffis proves the magnitude of that substan
tial encouragement which these two causes concm- to give.
There is Uttie or no foreign fron, I presume, used in the county
of Lancaster. This is owing to the heavy expense of land car
riage ; and, as we recede farther from the coast, the manufactur
ers are stffi more completely secured, as to thefr own immediate
market, agffinst the competition of the imported article. But
what they ask is to be aUowed to supply the sea-coast, at such
a price as shaU be formed by adffing to the cost at the mines the
expense of land carriage to the sea; and tffis appears to me
most unreasonable. The effect of it woffid be to compel the
consumer to pay the cost of two land tiansportations ; for, in
the fiirst place, the price of iron at the inland furnaces wiU al
ways be found to be at, or not much below, the price of the
imported article m the seaport, and the cost of tiansportation to
the neighborhood of the furnace ; and to enable the home prod
uct to hold a competition with the imported in the seaport, the
cost of another tiansportation downward, from the furnace to
the coast, must be added. Until our means of inland commerce
be improved, and the charges of tiansportation by that means
lessened, it appears to me whoUy impracticable, with such duties
as any one would think of proposing, to meet the wishes of the
manufacturers of this article. Suppose we were to add the
they receive from the magazines are deducted from this pay." The value of tha
rouble at that time (1799) was about twenty-four pence sterling, or forty-five
cents of our money.
" By the edict of 1799," it is added, " a laborer with a horse shall receive,
daily, in summer, twenty, and in winter, twelve copecks ; a laborer without a
- horse, in summer, ten, in winter, eight copecks."
A copeck is the hundreth part of a rouble, or about half a cent of our money.
The price of labor may have risen, in some degree, since that period, but proba
bly not much.

144 Speeches in Congress
duty proposed by this bffi, although it woffid benefit the capital
invested ffi works near the sea and the navigable rivers, yet the
benefit woffid not extend far in the interior. Where, then, are
we to stop, or what Umit is proposed to us ?
The freight of fron has been afforded from Sweden to the
United States as low as eight dollars per ton. This is not more
than the price of fifty mUes of land carriage. Stockholm, there
fore, for the purpose of this argument, may be considered as
within fifty mUes of PhUadelphia. Now, it is at once a just and
a strong view of this case, to consider, that there are, within fifty
mUes of our market, vast mffititudes of persons who are wffiing
to labor in the production of this article for us, at the rate of
seven cents per day, while we have no labor which wiU not com
mand, upon the average, at least five or six times that amount.
The question is, then, shaU we buy this article of these manu
facturers, and suffer our own labor to earn its greater reward, or
shaU we employ our own labor in a simUar manufacture, and
make up to it, by a tax on consumers, the loss which it must
necessarUy sustain.
I proceed, Sfr, to the article of hemp. Of this we imported
last year, in round numbers, 6,000 tons, paying a duty of f 30 a
ton, or $ 180,000 on the whole amount ; and this article, it is to
be remembered, is consumed almost entfrely in the uses of nav
igation. The whole burden may be said to faU on one interest.
It is said we can produce this article if we wUl raise the duties.
But why is it not produced now ? or why, at least, have we not
seen some specimens ? for the present is a very ffigh duty, when
expenses of importation are added. Hemp was purchased at
St. Petersburg, last year, at $ 101.67 per ton. Charges attend
ing shipment, &c., f 14.25. Freight may be stated at f 30 per
ton, and our existing duty 1 30 more. These tffiee last sums,
being the charges of transportation, amount to a protection of
near seventy-five per cent, in favor of the home manufacturer,
if there be any such. And we ought to consider, also, that
the price of hemp at St. Petersburg is increased by aU the ex
pense of tiansportation from the place of growth to that port ;
BO that probably the whole cost of transportation, from the place
of growth to our market, incluffing our duty, is equal to the ffist
cost of the article; or, in other words, is a protection in favor
of our own product of one hundred per cent.

The Tariff 145
And since it is stated that we have great quantities of fine
land for the production of hemp, of which I have no doubt, the
question recurs. Why is it not produced ? I speak of the water-
rotted hemp, for it is admitted that that which is dew-rotted is
not sufficiently good for the requisite purposes. I cannot say
whether the cause be in cUmate, in the process of rotting, or
what else, but the fact is certain, that there is no American
water-rotted hemp in the market. We sure acting, therefore,
upon an hypothesis. Is it not reasonable that those who say that
they can produce the article shaU at least prove the tiuth of that
aUegation, before new taxes are Iffid on those who use the for
eign commodity ? Suppose this bffi passes ; the price of hemp
is immediately rffised $ 14.80 per ton, and this burden falls im
meffiately on the ship-builder ; and no part of it, for the present,
wiU go for the benefit of the American grower, because he has
none of the article that can be used, nor is it expected that much
of it wffi be produced for a considerable time. Stffi the tax takes
effect upon the imported article ; and the sffip-owners, to enable
the Kentucky farmer to receive an adffitional % 14 on his ton of
hemp, whenever he may be able to rffise and manufacture it,
pay, in the mean time, an equal sum per ton into the tieasury on
aU the imported hemp which they are stiU obUged to use ; and
this is caUed " protection ! " Is this just or fafr ? A particffiar
interest is here burdened, not only for the benefit of another
particffiar interest, but burdened also beyond that, for the benefit
of the tieasury. It is said to be important for the countey that
this article shoffid be raised in it ; then let the countiy bear the
expense, and pay the bounty. If it be for the good of the
whole, let the sacrffice be made by the whole, and not by a part.
If it be thought usefffi and necessary, from poUtical considera
tions, to encourage the growth and manufacture of hemp, gov
ernment has abundant means of doing it. It might give a
dfrect bounty, and such a measure would, at least, ffisteibute the
burden equaUy ; or, as government itself is a great consumer of
this article, it might stipulate to confine its own purchases to
the home product, so soon as it should be shown to be of the
proper quaUty. I see no objection to this proceeffing, ff it be
thought to be an object to encourage the production. It might
easUy, and perhaps properly, be provided by law, that the navy
should be suppUed with i\merican hemp, the quaUty being

146 Speeches in Congress
good, at any price not exceeffing, by more than a given amount,
the current price of foreign hemp in our market. Every tffing
conspfres to render some such course preferable to the one now
proposed. The encouragement in that way woffid be ample,
and, if the experiment should succeed, the whole object woffid
be gained; and if it should faU, no considerable loss or evil
woffid be felt by any one.
I stated, some days ago, and I wish to renew the statement,
what was the amount of the proposed augmentation of the
duties on fron and hemp, in the cost of a vessel. Take the case
of a common ship of tffiee hunffied tons, not coppered, nor cop
per-fastened. It would stand thus, by the present duties : —
14i tons of iron, for huU, rigging, and anchors, at $ 15
per ton, . . . . . . f 217.50
10 tons of hemp, at $ 30, . 300.00
40 bolts Russia duck, at 1 2, . . . . 80.00
20 bolts Ravens duck, at % 1.25, . . . 25.00
On articles of ship-chandlery, cabin furniture, hard
ware, &c., ..... 40.00

$ 662.50
The biU proposes to add, —
$ 7.40 per ton on fron, which wiU be . . 1 107.30
$ 14.80 per ton on hemp, equal to . . 148.00
And on duck, by the late amendment of the biU, say
25 per cent., . ... 25.00
$ 280.30
But to the duties on iron and hemp should be added those
paid on copper, whenever that article is used. By the state
ment which I furnished the other day, it appeared that the duties
received by government on articles used in the construction of
a vessel of three hunffied and fifty-nine tons, with copper fasten
ings, amounted to $ 1,056. With the augmentations of this
bUl, they would be equal to 1 1,400.
Now I cannot but flatter myself, Mr. Chafrman, that, before
the committee wffi consent to this new burden upon the ship
ping interest, it wiU very deUberately weigh the probable conse
quences. I woffid again urgently solicit its attention to the con-

The Tariff 147
dition of that interest. We are told that government has pro
tected it, by discriminating duties, and by an exclusive right to
the coasting teade. But it would retffin the coasting tiade, by
its own natural efforts, in like manner, and with more certainty,
than it now retffins any portion of foreign tiade. The discrimi
nating duties are now aboUshed, and while they existed, they
were nothing more than countervaffing measures ; not so much
designed to give our navigation an advantage over that of other
nations, as to put it upon an equaUty ; and we have, accordingly,
aboUshed ours, when they have been wilUng to aboUsh thefrs.
Look to the rate of freights. Were they ever lower, or even so
low ? I ask gentlemen who know, whether the harbor of Charles
ton, and the river of Savannah, be not crowded with ships seek
ing employment, and finding none? I woffid ask the gentle
men from New Orleans, if their magnificent Mississippi does
not exhibit, for furlongs, a forest of masts ? The condition, Sfr,
of the shipping interest is not that of those who are insisting on
ffigh profits, or stiuggUng for monopoly ; but it is the conffition
of men content with the smaUest earnings, and anxious for thefr
bread. The freight of cotton has formerly been three pence ster
ling, from Charleston to Liverpool, in time of peace. It is now
I know not what, or how many fractions of a penny ; I think,
however, it is stated at five eighths. The producers, then, of
this great staple, are able, by means of this navigation, to send
it, for a cent a pound, from thefr own doors to the best market
in the world.
Mr. Chairman, I wffi now only remind the committee that,
wffile we are proposing to add new burdens to the shipping in
terest, a very different Une of poUcy is foUowed by our great
commercial and maritime rival. It seems to be announced as
the sentiment of the government of England, and undoubtedly
it is its real sentiment, that the first of aU manufactures is the
manufacture of sffips. A constant and wakefffi attention is paid
to this interest, and very important regulations, favorable to it,
have been adopted withm the last year, some of which I wiU
beg leave to refer to, with the hope of exciting the notice, not
only of the committee, but of aU others who may feel, as I do, a
deep interest ffi tffis subject. In the ffist place, a general
amendment has taken place in the register acts, intioducing
many new provisions, and, among others, the foUowing: —

148 Speeches in Congress
A dfrect mortgage of the interest of a ship is aUowed, with
out subjecting the mortgagee to the responsibiUty of an owner.
The proportion of ffiterest held by each owner is exhibited ffi
the register, thereby facUitating both sales and mortgages, and
giving a new value to shipping among the moneyed classes.
Shares, ffi the ships of copartnerships, may be registered as
joint property, and subject to the same rules as other partnership
effects. Ships may be registered in the name of tiustees, for the ben
efit of joint-stock companies.
And many other regulations are adopted, with the same
general view of rendering the mode of holding the property as
convenient and as favorable as possible.
By another act, British registered vessels, of every description,
are aUowed to enter into the general and the coasting tiade in
the Inffia seas, and may now tiade to and from India, with any
part of the world, except China.
By a thfrd, aU Urffitations and restrictions, as to latitude and
longitude, are removed from ships engaged in the Southern
whale-fishery. These regffiations, I presume, have not been
made without ffist obtaffiing the consent of the East India
Company ; so tiue is it found, that real encouragement of enter
prise oftener consists, in our days, in restiaining or buying off
monopolies and prohibitions, than in imposing or extending
them. The tiade with freland is turned into a free coasting trade ;
Ught duties have been reduced, and various other beneficial ar
rangements made, and stiU others proposed. I might add, that,
in favor of general commerce, and as showing thefr confidence
in the principles of Uberal intercourse, the British government
has perfected the warehouse system, and authorized a recipro
city of duties with foreign states, at the ffiscretion of the Privy
CouncU. This, Sfr, is the attention which our great rival is paying to
these important subjects, and we may assure ourselves that, ff
we do not cherish a proper sense of our own interests, she wffi
not only beat us, but wffi deserve to beat us.
Sfr, I will detain you no longer. There are some parts of
this biU which I highly approve ; there are others in which I
shoffid acquiesce ; but those to which I have now stated my

The Tariff i49
objections appear to me so destitute of aU justice, so burden
some and so dangerous to that interest which has steadUy en
riched, gaUantly defended, and prouffiy ffistingffished us, that
nothmg can prevaU upon me to give it my support.*
* Since the delivery of this speech, an arrival has brought London papers
containing the speech of the English Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Robin
son) , on the 23d of February last, in submitting to Parliament the annual finan
cial statement. Abundant confirmation will be found in that statement of the
remarks made in the preceding speech, as to the prevailing sentiment, in the
English government, on the general subject of prohibitory laws, and on the
silk manufacture and the wool tax particularly.

The Judiciary*

At the first session of the Nineteenth Congress a bill was introduced
into the House of Representatives, by Mr. Webster, from the Committee
on the Judiciary, which proposed that the Supreme Court of the United
States should thenceforth consist of a chief justice and nine associate
justices, and provided for the appointment of three additional associate
justices of said court, and that the seventh Judicial Circuit Court of the
United States should consist of the districts of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois ,-
the eighth circuit, of the districts of Kentucky and Missouri ; the ninth
circuit, of the districts of Tennessee and Alabama ; and the tenth cir
cuit, of the districts of Louisiana and Mississippi.
It repealed so much of any act or acts of Congress as vested in the
District Courts of the United States in the districts of Indiana, Illinois,
Missouri, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana, the powers and jurisdic
tion of Cfrcuit Courts, and provided that there should be thenceforth
Circuit Courts for said districts, to be composed of the justice of the
Supreme Court assigned or allotted to the circuit to which such districts
might respectively belong, and of the district judge of such districts.
On this bill Mr. Webster spoke as follows : —
The bffi which is under the consideration of the committee
is so simple in its provisions, and so unembarrassed with detaU,
that Uttle or notffing in the way of explanation merely is prob
ably expected from the committee. But the general importance
of the subject, and the material change wffich the proposed
measure embraces, demands some exposition of the reasons
which have led the Committee on the Judiciary to submit it to
the consideration of the House.
The occasion naturaUy presents two inqufries . first, whether
any evils exist in the administiation of justice in the courts of
* Remarks made in the House of Representatives of the United States, on the
4th of January, 1826, on the Bill to amend the Judiciary System.

The Judiciary 151
the Uffited States ; and secondly, whether, if there be such evUs,
the proposed biU is a proper and suitable remedy. On both
these points it is my duty to express the sentiments which the
Committee on the Judiciary entertain. Perhaps, however, Mr.
Chafrman, before entering into a ffiscussion of these two ques
tions, I may be aUowed to state something of the history of this
department of the government, and to advert to the several laws
which have been, from time to time, enacted respecting its or
ganization. The jufficial power, which, by the Constitution, was to be ex
ercised by the present government, necessarUy engaged the at
tention of the ffist Congress. The subject fell into the hands of
very able men, and it may weU excite astonishment that the
system which they prepared and recommended, and which was
adopted in the hurried session of the summer of 1789, has thus
far been found to fffifil, so weU and for so long a time, the great
purposes which it was designed to accomplish. The general
success of the general system, so far, may weU inspfre some de
gree of caution in the minds of those who are caUed on to alter
or amend it.
By the origmal act of September, 1789, there was to be a
Supreme Court, accorffing to the Constitution, which was to
consist of six judges, and to hold two sessions a year at the
seat of government. The Uffited States, or such of them as
had then adopted the Constitution, were to be divided into cfr-
cffits and ffistricts, and there was to be a Distiict Court in each
ffistrict, holden by a ffistrict judge. The ffistricts were divided
into tffiee cfrcffits, the Eastern, the Middle, and the Southern ;
and there was to be a Cfrcffit Court in each ffistrict, to be com
posed of two of the justices of the Supreme Court, and the
ffistrict judge for the district. This Cfrcuit Court was to hold
two sessions a year in each ffistrict, and I need not inform the
committee, that the great mass of business, excepting only that
of admfralty and maritime jurisffiction, belonged to the Cfrcuit
Court as a court of original jurisffiction. It entertained appeals,
or writs of error, also, from the decisions of the Distiict Courts,
m aU cases.
By this arrangement, then, the justices of the Supreme Court
were requfred to hold two sessions of that court annuaUy, at
the seat of government, to hear appeals and causes removed by

152 Speeches in Congress
writs of error; and it was reqffired of them ffiso, that tw^o of
them shoffid attend in each distiict twice a year, to hold, with
the ffistrict judge, a Cfrcffit Court.
It was found that these duties were so burdensome, that they
could not be performed. In November, 1792, the judges ad-
ffiessed the President on the subject, (who laid thefr communi
cation before Congress,) setting forth thefr inability to perform
the services imposed on them by law, without exertions and sac-
rffices too great to be expected from any men. It was, doubt
less, this communication which produced the law of March, 1793,
by which it was provided that one judge of the Supreme Court,
with the distiict judge, shoffid constitute the Cfrcffit Court.
And, inasmuch as the courts woffid now consist of two judges,
provision was made, perhaps sufficiently awkward and incon
venient, for the case of difference of opinion. It wUl be observed,
Mr. Chafrman, that by these laws, thus far, particular justices
are not assigned to particffiar cfrcffits. Any two judges of the
Supreme Court, under the first law, and any one, under that of
1793, -with the distiict judge, constituted a Cfrcffit Court. A
change, or alternation, of the judges was contemplated by the
law. It was accorffingly provided by the act of 1793, that, in
case of ffivision of opffiion, as the court consisted of but two
judges, the question shoffid be continued to the next session,
and, if a different judge then appeared, and his opinion coin
cided with that of his predecessor, judgment shoffid go accord •
And here, Mr. Chairman, I wish to observe, that, in my opin
ion, the original plan of holding the Cfrcffit Courts by ffifferent
judges, from time to time, was ffi-judged and founded on a
false analogy. It seems to have been borrowed from the Eng
Ush Courts of Assize and Nisi Prius ; but the ffifference ffi the
powers and jurisdiction of the judges in the two cases rendered
what was proper for one not a fit model for the other. The
English judges at Nisi Prius, so far as civU causes are con
cerned, have nothing to do but tiy questions of fact by the aid
of a jury, on issues or pleaffings already settled in the court
from which the record proceeds. They give no final judgments ;
nor do they make interlocutory orders respecting the proceeding
and progress of the cause. They take a verdict of the jury on
the issues afready joined between the parties, and give no other

The Judiciary 153
dfrections in matters of law, than such as become necessary in
the course of this trial by jury. Every case begun, therefore, is
ordinarUy finished. Notffing of that case remains for the judge's
successor. K it be tried, the record is taken back with the ver-
ffict to Westminster HaU; if it be not tiled, the whole case
remains for a subsequent occasion. It is, perhaps, surprising,
that the very able men who framed the first jufficial act ffid not
see the great ffifference between this manner of proceeffing at
the EngUsh Assizes, and the necessary course of proceeffing in
our Cfrcffit Courts, with the powers and jurisffictions conferred
on those courts. These are courts of final jurisdiction ; they not
only take verfficts, but give judgments. Here suits are brought,
proceeded with through aU thefr stages, tiled, and finaUy deter-
imned. And as, ffi the progress of sffits, especiaUy those of
eqffity jurisdiction, it necessarily happens that there are ffifferent
stages, and successive orders become necessary from term to
term, it happened, of course, that the judge was often changed
before the cause was decided ; he who heard the end had not
heard the beginffing. When to tffis is added, that these judges
were bred ffi ffifferent schools, and, as to matters of practice, es
peciaUy, accustomed to ffifferent usages, it wffi be easy to per
ceive that no smaU difficulties were to be encountered in the
orffinary despatch of business. So, in cases reserved for advise
ment and further consideration, the judge reserving the question
was not the judge to decide it. He who heard the argument
was not to make the decision. Without pursffing this part of
the case farther, it is qffite obvious that such a system coffid not
answer the ends of justice. The courts, indeed, were called Cfr
cffit Courts, which seemed to imply an itffierant character ; but,
ffi truth, they resembled much more, in thefr power and jurisffic
tion, the EngUsh courts sitting in bench, than the Assizes, to
wffich they appear to have been likened.
The act of 1793, by requfring the attendance of only one, in
stead of two, of the judges of the Supreme Court on the cfr
cffits, of course ffiminished by one half the cfrcffit labors of those
judges. We then come to the law of February, 1801. By this act,
the judges of the Supreme Court were reUeved from aU cfrcuit
duties. Provision was made that thefr number shoffid be re
duced, on the ffrst vacancy, from six to five. They were stffi to

154 Speeches in Congress
hold two sessions annuaUy of the Supreme Court, and cfrcuit
judges were appointed to hold the Cfrcffit Court in each ffistiict.
The provisions of this law are generaUy known, and it is not
necessary to recite them particularly. It is enough to say, that,
in five of the sis cfrcffits, the Cfrcuit Court was to consist of
three judges, speciaUy appointed to constitute such court ; and
in the sixth, of one judge, speciaUy appointed, and the ffistiict
judge of the ffistiict.
We all know, Sfr, that tffis law lasted but a twelvemonth. It
was repealed in toto by the act of the 8th of March, 1802 ; and a
new orgaffization of the Cfrcffit Courts was provided for by the
act of the 29th of AprU of that year. It must be admitted, I
think, Sfr, that this act made considerable improvements upon
the system, as it existed before the act of February, 1801. It took
away the itinerary character of the Cfrcffit Courts, by assigning
particffiar justices to particular cfrcffits. This, in my opinion,
was a great improvement. It conformed the constitution of the
court to the nature of the powers which it exercised. The same
judges now heard the cause through aU the stages of its progress,
and the court became, what its duties properly made it, a court
of record, with permanent judges, exercising a various jurisdic
tion, trying causes at its bar by jury, in cases proper for the in
tervention of a jury, and rendering final judgments. This act
also provided another mode of proceeffing with cases fri which
the two judges composffig the Cfrcuit Court should ffiffer in
opinion. It prescribed, that such ffifference should be stated,
certified to the Supreme Court, and that that court shoffid de
cide the question, and certify its decision to the Cfrcffit Court.
In tffis state of things, the jufficial system remained, without
material change, untU the year 1807, when a law was passed
for the appoffitment of an adffitional judge of the Supreme
Court, and a cfrcffit aUotted to him in the Western States.
It may be here observed, that, from the commencement, the
system has not been uniform. From the ffist, there was an
anomaly ffi it. By the original act of September, 1789, a Dis
tiict Court was estabUshed for Kentucky (then part of Vfrginia)
and for Maine (then part of Massachusetts), and, in adffition to
the powers of Distiict Courts, there was conferred on these aU
the jurisdiction which elsewhere belongs to Cfrcuit Courts, and,
in other cases, as new States were added to the Union, District

The Judiciary 155
Courts were estabUshed with the powers of Cfrcffit Courts.
The same tffing has happened, too, when States have been ffi-
vided into two distiicts. There are, at present, several States
wffich have no Cfrcuit Court except the Distiict Court, and
there are other States which are ffivided into more than one ffis
tiict, and ffi some of which Districts there is but a Distiict Court
with Cfrcffit Court jurisdiction ; so that it cannot be said that
the system has been at any time entfrely uniform.
So much, Mr. Chafrman, for the history of our legislation on
the jufficial department.
I am not aware, Mr. Chafrman, that there is any public com-
plaffit of the operation of the present system, so far as it appUes
to the Atiantic States. So far as I know, justice has been ad-
miffistered efficiently, promptly, and satisfactorily, in aU those
cfrcffits. The judges, perhaps, have a good deal of employment:
but they have been able to go through thefr arduous duties in
such manner as to leave no cause of complaint, as far as I am
informed. For my own part, I am not sangffine enough to ex
pect, as far as those cfrcffits are concerned, that any improve
ment can be made. In my opinion, none is needed. But it is
not so ffi the Western States. Here exists a great deficiency.
The country has outgrown the system. This is no man's faffit,
nor does it impute want of usual foresight to any one. It woffid
have seemed cffimerical in the framers of the law of 1789, if they
had professed to stiike out a plan which should have been ade
quate to the exigencies of the countey, as it actuaUy exists in 1826.
From a period as far back as the close of the late war, the peo
ple of the West have appUed to Congress on the subject of the
courts. No session of Congress has passed without an attempt,
ffi one or the other house, to produce some change; and al
though various projects have been presented, the inherent ffiffi
cffities of the subject have prevented any efficient action of the
legislature. I wffi state shortly, Sfr, and as nearly as I remem
ber, what has been at ffifferent times proposed.
In the ffist place, it has been proposed to recur to the system
of Cfrcffit Courts, upon the principle, although not exactly after
the model, of the act of February, 1801. A bUl of this charac
ter passed the Senate in 1819, ffividffig the country ffito ffine
cfrcuits, and proviffing for the appoffitment of one cfrcffit judge
to each cfrcffit, who with the ffistiict judge of the ffistrict shoffid

156 Speeches in Congress
constitute the Cfrcuit Court. It also provided, that the Su
preme Court, as vacancies shoffid occur, shoffid be reduced to
five members. This bUl, I beUeve, was not acted upon ffi this
House. Again, it has been proposed to constitute Cfrcffit Courts
by the union of the distiict judges in the circuit. It has been
proposed, also, to extend the existing system somewhat in con
formity to the object of the present bffi, by adffing to the num
ber of the judges in the Supreme Court. And a ffifferent ar
rangement stffi has been suggested, which contemplates the
appointment of circffit judges for some ffistiicts, and the con
tinued performance of circffit duties by the supreme judges in
others, with such legal provision as shaU not attach the judges
of the Supreme Court, in the performance of thefr cfrcuit duties,
unequaUy to any part of the countiy, but aUow them to be dis
tributed equaUy and fafrly over the whole. This system, though
somewhat complex, and perhaps liable to be misunderstood, is,
I confess, what appears to me best of aU suited to our conffition.
It woffid not make the Supreme Court too numerous ; and it
would stffi requfre from its members the performance of circffit
duties ; it woffid allow a proper ffistiibution of these members
to every part of the countiy ; and, finaUy, it woffid furnish an
adequate provision for the despatch of business in the Cfrcffit
Courts. Upon this plan, a bffi was presented to the House of
Representatives at the ffist session of the last Congress, but it
ffid not meet with general favor ; and the fate of a simUar prop
osition elsewhere, at a subsequent period, discourages any revi
val of it.
I now come, Sfr, to consider whether any, and what, evUs ex
ist; and then, whether the present bffi be a sffitable remedy.
And in the ffist place, it is said, perhaps with some justice, that
the busmess of the Supreme Court itself is not gone through
with sufficient promptitude ; that it is accumulatffig ; that great
delays are experienced, and greater delays feared. As to this, I
woffid observe, that the annual session of the court cannot last
above six or seven weeks, because it commences in February,
and the cfrcffit duties of the judges requfre them to leave this
place the latter part of March. But I know no reason why the
judges should not assemble earUer. I believe it woffid not ma
teriaUy interfere with thefr cfrcffit duties, to commence the ses
sion here in the early part of January ; and if that were the case.

The Judiciary 157
I have littie doubt that, in two years, they woffid clear the
docket. A bffi to make this change passed this House two
years ago ; I regret to say, it was not acted upon in the Senate.
As to returffing to the original practice of having two sessions
of the Supreme Court within the year, I incUne to think it
whoUy inexpeffient. The inconvenience arising from the dis
tance of suitors and counsel from the seat of government forms
a decisive objection to that proposition.
The great evU, however, Sfr, at present experienced, and that
which calls most louffiy and imperatively for a remedy, is the
state of busffiess in the Circffit Courts in the Western States.
The seventh cfrcffit consists of Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee.
AU the other Western States have Distiict Courts, with the
powers of Cfrcffit Courts. I am clearly of opinion, that some fur
ther provision is requfred of us for the administiation of justice
in these States. The existing means are not equal to the end.
The jufficial organization is not competent to exercise the juris
ffiction which the laws confer upon it. There is a want of men,
and a want of time. In this respect, it appears to me that our
constitutional duty is very plain. The Constitution confers cer
tain judiciffi powers on the government of the United States ;
we undertake to provide for the exercise of these powers ; but
the provision is inadequate, and the powers are not exercised.
By the Constitution, the judicial power of this government ex
tends, as well as to other things, to causes between citizens of
different States. We open courts professedly to exercise that
jurisffiction ; but they are not competent to it ; it is not exer
cised with reasonable promptitude ; the sffitor is delayed, and
the end of the constitutional provision, in some measure, defeat
ed. Now, it appears to me very plain, that we shoffid either
refuse to confer this jurisffiction on the courts, or that we shoffid
so constitute them that it may be efficiently exercised.
I hold, Sfr, the certificate of the clerk for the Distiict and Cir
cuit Court of the Disteict of Kentucky, that there are now pend-
mg in those courts nine hundred and fifty causes. As this is
not a maritime disteict, most of these causes, doubtless, are in
the Cfrcuit Court. This accumulation has not arisen from any
want of dffigence in the judges themselves, for the same paper
states, that two thousand causes have been disposed of withffi
the last three years. The Memorial of the Bar of Nashvffie in-

158 Speeches in Congress
forms us that one hundred and sixty cases are pending in the
Circuit Court for the Western Distiict of Tennessee ; a num
ber, perhaps, not much less, is on the docket of the court for the
Eastern Distiict of Tennessee; and I am authorized to state
that two hunffied or two hunffied and fifty may be taken as the
number of suits pending in the Cfrcuit Court of Ohio. These
three States, Sfr, constitute one circffit ; they extend over a wide
region ; the places for holffing the courts are at vast distances
from one another ; and it is not within the power of man, that the
judge assigned to this cfrcffit should get through the duties of his
station. With the state of the courts in the other Western and
Southwestern States, I am not so particularly acquainted. Gen
tlemen from those States wffi make it known to the committee.
I know enough, however, to be satisfied that the whole case caUs
for attention. It grows no better by delay, and, whatever diffi
culties embarrass it, we may as weU meet them at once, and agree
upon such remedy as shaU, upon the whole, seem most expeffient.
And this. Sir, brings me to the most difficult part of our in
quiry ; that is to say, whether such a measure as this bffi pro
poses be the proper remedy. I beg to say. Sir, that I feel this
difficulty as deeply as it can be felt by any member of the com
mittee ; and whUe I express my own opinions, such as they are,
I shaU be most happy to derive light from the greater experi
ence, or the better inteffigence, of any gentleman. To me it
appears, that we are brought to the alternative of deciffing be
tween something like what this biU proposes, and the Circffit
Court system, as provided in the bUl of the Senate in 1819.
As a practical question, I think it has come to this point : ShaU
we extend the present system, by increasing the number of the
judges, or shaU we recur to the system of Cfrcffit Courts ? I in
voke the attention of the committee to this question, because,
thinking the one or the other inevitable, I wish for the mature
judgment of the House on both.
In favor of the Cfrcuit Court system, it may be said, that it is
uniform, and may be made to apply to aU the States equaUy;
so that ff new States come into the Union, Circffit Courts may
be provided for them without derangement to the general organ
ization. This, doubtless, is a consideration entitled to much
weight. It is said, also, that by separating the judges of the
Supreme Court from the circuits, we shaU leave them ample

The Judiciary 159
time for the ffischarge of the high duties of thefr appellate juris
diction. This, no doubt, is teue ; but then, whether it be desira
ble, upon the whole, to withdraw the judges of the Supreme
Court from the cfrcuits, and to confine thefr labors entirely to
the sessions at Washington, is a question which has most deeply
occupied my reflections, and in regard to which I am free to
confess some change has been wrought in my opiffions. With
entfre respect for the better judgment of others, and dovibting,
therefore, when I find myself ffiffering from those who are wiser
and inore experienced, I am stffi constiained to say, that my
judgment is agffinst withffiawing the judges of the Supreme
Court from the cfrcffits, ff it can be avoided. The reasons
which mfluence tffis sentiment are general, and perhaps may be
thought too indefinite and uncertain to serve as a gffide in meas
ures of pubUc importance ; they nevertheless appear to me to
have weight, and I wiU state them with frankness, in the hope
that, ff they are without reasonable foundation, they wffi be
shown to be so, when certffinly I shall cheerfuUy reUnqffish them.
In the ffist place, it appears to me that such an intercourse as
the judges of the Supreme Court are enabled to have with the
profession, and with the people, in thefr respective circffits, is
itseff an object of no inconsiderable importance. It naturally
inspfres respect and confidence, and it produces a reciprocal
commuffication of information through aU the branches of the
jufficial department This leads to a harmony of opinion and
of action. The Supreme Court, by itseff, is in some measure
insffiated; it has not frequent occasions of contact with the
community. The bar that attends it is neither numerous nor
regffiar ffi its attendance. The gentlemen who appear before it,
ffi the character of counsel, come for the occasion, and depart
with the occasion. The profession is occupied mainly in the
objects which engage it in its own domestic forums ; it belongs
to the States, and thefr tribunals furnish its constant and prin
cipal theatie. li the judges of the Supreme Court, therefore,
are whoUy withdrawn from the cfrcffits, it appears to me there
is danger of lea,ving them without the means of useful inter
course with other jufficial characters, with the profession of
which they are members, and with the pubUc. But, without
pursffing these general reflections, I would say, in the second
place, that I think it usefffi that judges shoffid see in practice

i6o Speeches in Congress
the operation and effect of thefr own decisions. This wffi pre
vent theory from running too far, or refining too much. We
find, in legislation, that general provisions of law, however cau
tiously expressed, often require Umitation and modffication.
Something of the same sort takes place in jufficature. How
ever beautiful may be the theory of general principles, such
is the infinite variety of human affafrs, that those most practised
in them and conversant with them see at every turn a necessity
of imposing restiaints and quaUfications on such principles.
The daUy appUcation of their own doctrmes wffi necessarUy in
spfre courts with caution ; and, by a knowledge of what takes
place upon the cfrcuits and occurs in constant practice, they will
be able to decide finally, without the imputation of having over
looked, or not understood, any of the important elements and
ingreffients of a just decision.
But further, Sfr, I must take the liberty of saying, that, in re
gard to the jufficial office, constancy of employment is of itseff,
in my judgment, a good, and a great good. I appeal to the con
viction of the whole profession, if, as a general rule, they do not
find that those judges who decide most causes decide them best.
Exercise strengthens and sharpens the faculties in this more
than in almost any other employment. I woffid have the juffi
cial office fffied by him who is whoUy a judge, always a judge,
and nothing but a judge. With proper seasons, of course, for
recreation and repose, his serious thoughts should aU be turned
to his official duties ; he should be omnis in hoc. I think. Sir,
there is hardly a greater mistake than has prevailed occasionaUy
in some of the States, of creatmg many judges, assigning them
duties which occupy but a smaU part of thefr time, and then
maldng this the ground for allowing them a smaU compensation.
The jufficial power is incompatible with any other pursuit in
life ; and aU the faculties of every man who takes it ought to be
constantiy exercised, and exercised to one end. Now, Sfr, it is
natural, that, in reasoning on this subject, I should take my
facts from what passes within my own means of observation.
K I am mistaken in my premises, the conclusion, of course,
ought to be rejected. But I suppose it wiU be safe to say, that
a session of eight weeks in the year will probably be sufficient
for the decision of causes in the Supreme Court ; and, reasoning
from what exists in one of the most considerable cfrcffits in the

The Judiciary i6i

Atiantic States, I suppose that eight, ten, or at most twelve
weeks, may be the average of the time requisite to be spent by
a cfrcffit judge in his court in those cfrcuits. If this be so, then,
if the courts be separated, we have supreme judges occupied
two months out of twelve, and circffit judges occupied three
months out of twelve. In my opinion, this is not a system
either to make or to keep good judges. The Supreme Court
exercises a great variety of jurisffiction. It reverses decisions at
common law, in eqffity, and in admfralty ; and with the theory
and the practice of aU these systems it is inffispensable that the
judges shoffid be accurately and intimately acquainted. It is
for the committee to judge how far the withffiawing them from
the cfrcffits, and confining them to the exercise of an appeUate
jurisffiction, may increase or ffimiffish this information. But,
again, Sfr, we have a great variety of local laws existing in tffis
country, wffich are the standard of decision where they prevaU.
The laws of New England, Maryland, Louisiana, and Ken
tucky are almost so many different codes. These laws are to be
construed and admiffistered, in many cases, in the courts of the
Uffited States. Is there any doubt that a judge coming on the
bench of the Supreme Comrt with a famUiar acquaintance with
these laws, derived from daUy practice and decisions, must be
more able both to form his own judgment correctly, and to assist
that of his brethren, than a stianger who only looks at the the
ory ? Tffis is a point too plain to be argued. Of the weight
of the suggestion the committee wiU judge. It appears to me, I
confess, that a court remotely situated, a stianger to these local
laws in thefr appUcation and practice, with whatever dffigence
or with whatever abffity, must be Uable to fall into great mistakes.
May I ask your indulgence, Mr. Chafrman, to suggest one
other idea. With no ffisposition whatever to entertain doubts
as to the manner in which the executive duty of appointments
shaU at any time hereafter be performed, the Supreme Court is
so important, that, in whatever relates to it, I am wUUng to make
assurance doubly sure, and to adopt, therefore, whatever fafrly
comes ffi my way Ukely to mcrease the probabffity that able and
efficient men wiU be placed upon that bench. Now I confess
that I know notffing wffich I think more conducive to that end
than the assignmg to the members of that court important, re
sponsible, inffividual duties. Whatsoever makes the ffiffividual

VOL. V. — II

1 62 Speeches in Congress
prominent, conspicuous, and responsible increases the proba
biUty that he will be some one possessing the proper reqffisites
for a judge. It is one thing to give a vote upon a bench (es
pecially if it be a numerous bench) for plaintiff or defendant,
and qffite another thing to act as the head of a court of various
jurisffiction, civU and criminal, to conduct tiials by jury, and
render judgments in law, eqffity, and admfralty. While these
duties belong to the condition of a judge on the bench, that
place wiU not be a sinecure, nor Ukely to be conferred without
proofs of proper quaUfications. For these reasons, I am fricUned
to wish that the judges of the Supreme Court may not be sep
arated from the cfrcffits, if any other sffitable provision can be
made. As to the present bffi, Mr. Chafrman, it wiU doubtiess be ob
jected, that it makes the Supreme Court too numerous. In
regard to that, I am bound to say that my own opinion was,
that the present exigency of the country could have been an
swered by the addition of two members to the court. I beUeve
the three Northwestern States might weU enough go on for some
time longer, and form a circffit of themselves, perhaps, hereaf
ter, as the popffiation shaU increase, and the state of their affairs
requfre it. The adffition of the thfrd judge is what I assent to,
rather than what I recommend. It is what I would glaffiy
avoid, if I coffid with propriety. I admit that, for some causes,
the court as constituted by the bffi wffi be inconveniently large ;
for such, especiaUy, as requfre investigation into matters of fact,
such as those of eqffity and admfralty, and perhaps for all pri
vate causes generaUy. But the great and leading character of
the Supreme Court, its most important duties, and its highest
functions, have not yet been aUuded to. It is its peculiar rela
tion to this government and the State governments, it is the
power which it rightfuUy holds and exercises, of revising the
opinions of other tiibunals on constitutional questions, as the
great practical expounder of the powers of the government,
which attaches to this tribunal the greatest attention, and makes
it worthy of the most deliberate consideration. Duties at once
so important and so deUcate impose no common responsibffity,
and requfre no common talent and weight of character. A very
smaU court seems unfit for these high functions. These duties,
though essentiaUy judicial, partake something of a poUtical

The Judiciary 163
character. The judges are caUed on to sit in judgment on
the acts of independent States ; they conteol the wUl of sover
eigns; they are Uable to be exposed, therefore, to the resent
ment of wounded sovereign pride; and from the very nature
of our system, they are sometimes called on, also, to decide
whether Congress has not exceeded its constitutional limits. Sfr,
there exists not upon the earth, and there never ffid exist, a juffi-
ciffi tiibunal clothed with powers so various, and so important.
I doubt the safety of rendering it smaU in number. My own
opffiion is, that, if we were to estabUsh Cfrcffit Courts, and to
confine thefr judges to thefr duties on the bench, their number
shoffid not be at aU reduced ; and if, by some moderate adffition
to it, other important objects may weU be answered, I am pre
pared to vote for such adffition. In a government like ours, en
tfrely popffiEir, care shoffid be taken in every part of the system,
not offiy to do right, but to satisfy the commuffity that right is
done. The opiffions of mankind naturaUy attach more respect
and confidence to the decisions of a court somewhat numerous,
than to those of one composed of a less number. And, for
myseff, I acknowledge my fear, that, ff the number of the court
were reduced, and its members whoUy withffiawn from the cfr
cffits, it might become an object of unpleasant jealousy and
great distrust.
Mr. Chafrman, I suppose I need not assure the committee
that, if I saw any thmg ffi this bffi which woffid lessen the re
spectabffity or shake the independence of the Supreme Court, I
shoffid be the last man to favor it. I look upon the jufficial de
partment of this government as its main support. I am per
suaded that the Union coffid not exist without it. I shaU oppose
whatever I thffik calcffiated to disturb the fabric of government,
to unsettle what is settled, or to shake the faith of honest men
in the stabiUty of the laws, or the purity of thefr admffiistiation.
If any gentleman shaU show me that any of these consequences
is Uke to foUow the adoption of this measure, I shaU hasten to
withffiaw from it my support. But I think we are bound to do
something ; and shaU be most happy ff the wisdom of the House
shaU suggest a course more free from ffifficffities than that wffich
is now proposed to it.

164 Speeches in Congress

FURTHER REMARKS MADE ON THE SAME SUBJECT, ON THE
25th OF JANUARY, 1826, IN REPLY TO THE ARGUMENTS USED
AGAINST THE BILL, AND IN FAVOR OF ITS POSTPONEMENT.
I HAD not intended, Sfr, to avaU myself of the indffigence
wffich is generally aUowed, under cfrcumstances Uke the present,
of making a reply. But the House has been mvited with such
earnestness to postpone this measure to another year, it has
been pressed, with so much apparent alarm, to give no further
countenance or support now to the biU, that I reluctantly depart
from my purpose, and ask leave to offer a few brief remarks upon
the leaffing topics of the discussion.
This, Sfr, must be aUowed, and is, on aU hands aUowed, to be
a measure of great and general interest. It respects that im
portant branch of government, the judiciary ; and something of
a jufficial tone of ffiscussion is not unsffitable to the occasion.
We cannot tieat the question too calmly, or too dispassionately.
For myseff, I feel that I have no pride of opinion to gratify, no
eagerness of debate to be indulged, no competition to be pur
sued. I hope I may say, without impropriety, that I am not
msensible to the responsibffity of my own situation as a mem
ber of the House, and a member of the committee.* I am
aware of no prejuffice which shoffid draw my mind from the sin
gle and solicitous contemplation of what may be best ; and I
have Ustened attentively, through the whole course of tffis de
bate, not with the feeUngs of one who is meffitating the means
of replying to objections, or escapffig from thefr force, but with
an unaffected anxiety to give every argument its just weight,
and with a perfect reaffiness to abandon this measure, at any
moment, in favor of any other which should appear to have
solid grounds of preference. But I cannot say that my opinion
is altered. The measure appears to my mind in the same light
as when it was ffist presented to the House. I then saw some
inconveniences attending it, and admitted them. I see them
now ; but wffile the effect of tffis ffiscussion on my own mind
has not been to do away entfrely the sense of these inconven
iences, it has not been, on the other hand, to remove the greater
objections which exist to any other plan. I remain fffily con-
* Mr. Webster was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the House of
Representatives, at this session of Congress.

The Judiciary 165
vinced, that this course is, on the whole, that which is freest from
difficulties. However plausible other systems may seem in thefr
general outline, objections arise, and thicken as we go into thefr
detaUs. It is not now at all certain that those who are opposed
to this bffi are agreed as to what other measure should be pre
ferred. On the contiary, it is certain that no plan unites them
aU ; and they act together offiy on the ground of their common
ffissatisfaction with the proposed bill. That system which
seems most favored is the cfrcffit system, as provided for in
the Senate's bffi of 1819. But as to that there is not an entfre
agreement. One provision in that bffi was, to reduce the num
ber of the judges of the Supreme Court to five. This was a part,
too, of the origmal resolution of amendment moved by the gen
tieman from Vfrgffiia ; ' but it was afterwards varied ; probably
to meet the approbation of the gentleman from Pennsylvania,!
and others who preferred to keep the court at its present num
ber. But other gentlemen who are in opposition to this bffi
have stffi recommended a reduction of that number. Now, Sfr,
notwithstanffing such reduction was one object, or was to be
one effect, of the law of 1801, was contemplated, also, in the
Senate's bffi of 1819, and has been again recommended by
the gentleman from Vfrginia, and other gentlemen, yet I can
not persuade myself that any ten members of the House, upon
mature reflection, woffid now be in favor of such reduction. It
coffid only be made to take place when vacancies shoffid occur
on the bench, by death or resignation. Of the seven judges of
wffich the court consists, six are now assigned to cfrcffits in the
Atlantic States ; one only is attached to the Western Districts.
Now, Sfr, ff we were to provide for a reduction, it might hap
pen that the first vacancy woffid be in the situation of the single
Western judge. In that event, no appointment coffid be made
until two other vacancies shoffid occur, which might be several
years. I suppose that no man woffid think it just, or wise,
or prudent, to make a legal provision, in consequence of which
it might happen that there should be no Western judge at aU
on the supreme bench for several years to come. This part of
ffie plan, therefore, was wisely abandoned by the gentieman.
The court cannot be reduced ; and the question is only between
• Mr. Powell. t Mr. Buchanan.

1 66 Speeches in Congre

ss
seven justices of the Supreme Court, with ten cfrcuit judges, and
ten justices of the Supreme Court, with no cfrcffit judges.
I wffi take notice here of another suggestion made by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, who is generaUy so sober-minded
and considerate in his observations, that they deserve attention,
from respect to the quarter whence they proceed. That gentle
man recommends that the justices of the Supreme Court should
be reUeved from circuit duties, as individuals, but proposes, nev
ertheless, that the whole court shoffid become migratory, or am-
bffiatory, and that its sessions should be holden, now in New
York or Boston, now in Washington or Richmond, and now in
Kentucky or Ohio. And it is singffiar enough, that tffis arrange
ment is recommended in the same speech in which the authori
ty of a late President is cited, to prove that considerations aris
ing from the usuaUy advanced age of some of the judges, and
their reasonable desfre for repose, ought to lead us to reUeve
them from aU cfrcuit duties whatever. Trffiy, Sfr, this is a
strange plan of reUef. Instead of holffing courts in his own
State, and perhaps in his own town, and visiting a neighboring
State, every judge on this plan is to join every other judge, and
the whole bench to make, together, a sort of jufficial progress.
They are to visit the North, and the South, and to ascend and
descend the Alleghanies. Sfr, it is impossible to talk seriously
agamst such a proposition. To state it, is to refute it. Let me
merely ask, whether, in this peregrination of the court, it is pro
posed that they take aU thefr records of pendmg sffits, and the
whole calendar of causes, with them. If so, then the Kentucky
client, with his counsel, is to foUow the court to Boston ; and
the Boston cUent to pursue it back to Kentucky. Or is it, on
the conteeiry, proposed that there shall be grand jufficial ffivis-
ions in the country, and that while at the North, for example,
none but Northern appeals shaU be heard ? If this be intended,
then I ask. How often coffid the court sit in each one of these
ffivisions ? Certainly, not oftener than once in two years ; prob
ably, not oftener than once in three. An appeal, therefore,
might be brought before the appeUate court in two or three
years from the time of rendering the ffist judgment ; and sup
posffig judgment to be pronounced ffi the appeUate court at
the second term, it would be decided ffi two or thiee years more.
But it is not necessary to examine this suggestion further. Sir,

The Judiciary 167
every tiling conspfres to prove, that, with respect to the great
duties of the Supreme Court, they must be ffischarged at one
annual session, and that session must be holden at the seat of
government. If such provision be made as that the business of
the year in that court may be despatched within the year, rea
sonable promptitude in the administiation of justice wffi be at
tained ; and such provision, I beUeve, is practicable.
Another objection advanced by the member from Pennsylva
nia appUes as weU to the system as it now exists, as to that
wffich wffi be substituted if this bUl shall pass. The honorable
member thinks that the appeUate court and the court from
wffich the appeal comes shoffid, in aU cases, be kept entfrely ffis
tinct and separate. True principle requfres, in ffis judgment,
that the cfrcuit judge shoffid be excluded from any participa
tion in the revision of ffis own judgments. I beUeve, Sir, that,
m the early history of the court, the practice was for the judge
whose opiffion was under revision not to partake in the delib
erations of the court. This practice, however, was afterwards
altered, and the court resolved that it coffid not ffischarge the
judge from the duty of assisting ffi the decision of the appeal.
Whether the two courts ought to be kept so absolutely distinct
and separate as the member from Pennsylvania recommends, is
not so clear a question that persons competent to form an
opiffion may not differ upon it. On the one hand, it may very
weU be sffid, that, if the judgment appealed from has been ren
dered by one of the judges of the appeUate court, courtesy,
kmdness, or sympathy may inspfre some ffisposition ffi the
members of the same bench to afffim that judgment ; and that
the general habit of the court may thus become unfriendly to a
free and unbiased revision. On the other hand, it may be con
tended, that, ff there be no medium of communication between
the court of the first instance, and the court of appeUate juris
diction, there may be danger that the reasons of the ffist may
not be always weU understood, and its judgments consequently
Uable, sometimes, to be erroneously reversed. It certainly is not
true, that the chance of justice, ffi an appeUate court, is always
precisely equal to the chance of reversing the judgment below ;
although it is necessary for the peace of society and the termi
nation of Utigation to take it for granted, as a general rffie, that
what is decided by the ffitimate tiibunal is decided rightly.

1 68 Speeches in Congress
To guard against too great a tendency to reversals in appel
late courts, it has often been thought expeffient to furnish a
good opportunity at least of setting forth the grounds and rea
sons of the original judgment. Thus, in the British House of
Lords a judgment of the King's Bench is not orffinarUy reversed
until the judges have been called in, and the reason of thefr
several opiffions stated by themselves. Thus, too, in the Court
of Errors of New York, the ChanceUor and the judges are
members of the court ; and, although they do not vote upon the
revision of thefr own judgments or decrees, they are expected to
assign and explain the reasons of the original judgment. In
the modern practice of the courts of common law, causes are
constantly and daily revised on motions for new tiials founded
on the supposed misdfrection of the judge in matter of law. In
these cases the judge himself is a component member of the
court, and constantly takes part in its proceedings. It certainly
may happen in such cases that some bias of preconceived opin
ion may influence the individual judge, or some undue portion
of respect for the judgment already pronounced may uncon
sciously mingle itself with the judgments of others. But the
universaUty of the practice sufficiently shows that no great prac
tical evU is experienced from this cause.
It has been said in England, that the practice of revising the
opinions of judges by motions for new tiial, instead of filing biUs
of exception and suing out writs of error, has greatly ffiminished
the practical extent of the appeUate jurisdiction of the House of
Lords. This shows that suitors are not advised that they have
no hope to prevaU against the ffist opinions of inffividual judges,
or the sympathy of thefr brethren. Indeed, Sfr, judges of the
highest rank of inteUect have always been ffistingffished for the
candor with which they reconsider their own judgments. A
man who shoffid commend himseff for never having altered his
opffiion might be praised for ffimness of purpose ; but men
woffid tffink of him, either that he was a good deal above all
other mortals, or somewhat below the most enUghtened of them.
He who is not wise enough to be always right, shoffid be wise
enough to change his opinion when he finds it wrong. The
consistency of a trffiy great man is proved by his unfform at
tachment to tenth and principle, and ffis devotion to the better
reason; not by obstinate attachment to first-formed notions.

The Judiciary 169
Whoever has not candor enough, for good cause, to change his
own opinions, is not safe authority to change the opinions of
other men. But at least, Sir, the member from Pennsylvania
wffi admit, that, if an evil in this respect exist under the present
law, this bffi will afford some mitigation of that evU. By aug
menting the number of the judges, it diminishes the influence
of the ffidividuffi whose judgment may be under revision ; and
so far, I hope, the honorable member may himself think the
measure productive of good.
But, Sfr, before we postpone to another year the consideration
of tffis bUl, I beg again to remind the House that the measure is
not new. It is not new in its general character ; it is not en
tirely new in its particffiar provisions. The necessity of some
reform in the jufficial estabUshment of the countey has been pre
sented to every Congress, and every session of Congress, since
the peace of 1815. What has been recommended, at ffiffer
ent times, has been afready frequently stated. It is enough,
now, to say, that the measure of extending the system by in-
creasffig the number of the judges of the Supreme Court was
presented to the House, among other measures, in 1823, by the
Judiciary Committee ; and that so late as the last session it re
ceived a ffistffict expression of approbation in the other branch
of the legislature. Gentlemen have referred to the bffi intio
duced ffito this House two years ago. That bUl had my appro
bation ; I so declared at the commencement of this debate. It
proposed to effect the object of retaining the judges upon thefr
circffits without increasing their number. But it was complex.
It was thought to be unequal, and it was unsatisfactory. There
appeared no ffisposition in the House to adopt it ; and when the
same measure ffi substance was afterwards proposed in the other
branch of the legislature, it received the approbation of no
more than a haff dozen voices. This led me to make a remark,
at the opeffing of the debate, which I have afready repeated,
that, ffi my opiffion, we are brought to the narrow ground of de-
cidmg between the system of Cfrcffit Courts and the provisions
of this bffi. ShaU we keep the judges upon the cfrcuits and
augment thefr member, or shaU we relieve them from cfrcffit du
ties and appoint special cfrcuit judges in thefr places ? This, as
it seems to me, is the offiy practical question remaining for oui
decision.

170 Speeches in Congress
I do not intend, Sfr, to go again ffito the general question of
contmffing the justices of the Supreme Com-t in the ffischarge
of circffit duties. My opiffion has been afready expressed, and I
have heard nothmg to alter it. The honorable gentleman from
Vfrgffiia does me more than justice in explaining any expression
of his own which might refer this opiffion to a recent origin, 01
to any new cfrcumstances. I confess. Sir, that four-and-twenty
years ago, when tffis matter was ffiscussed in Congress, my opin
ion, as far as I can be supposed to have had any opinion then
on such subjects, incUned to the argument that recommended
the separation of the judges from the cfrcffits. But, if I may be
pardoned for referring to any thing so Uttle worthy the regard of
the House as my own experience, I wiU say that that experience
early led me to doubt the correctness of the first impression, and
that I became satisfied that it was desfrable in itseff that the
judges of the Supreme Court shoffid remain ffi the active dis
charge of the duties of the cfrcffits. I have acted ffi conformity
to tffis sentiment so often as this subject has been before Con
gress in the short periods that I have been a member. I stiU feel
the same conviction; and though I shaU certainly yield the
pomt, rather than that no provision for the existing exigency
should be made, yet I shoffid feel no inconsiderable pain in sub
mitting to such necessity. I do not doubt, indeed, Sfr, that, if
the judges were separated from cfrcuit duties, we shoffid go on
very weU for some years to come. But looking to it as a per
manent system, I view it with ffistrust and anxiety.
My reasons are afready before the House. I am not about to
repeat them. I beg to take tffis occasion, however, to correct
one or two misapprehensions of my meanmg into which gentle
men have faUen. I did not say, Sfr, that I wished the judges of
the Supreme Courts to go upon the cfrcffits, to the end that they
might see in the countiy the impression which thefr opinions
made upon the pubUc sentiment. Nothing Uke it. What I did
say was, that it was usefffi that the judge of the Supreme Court
shoffid be able to perceive the application and bearing of the
opinions of that court upon the variety of causes coming before
him at the cfrcffit. And is not this usefffi ? Is it not probable
that the judge wffi lay down a general rule with the greatest
wisdom and precision, who comprehends in his view the greatest
number of instances to wffich that rffie is to be appUed ? As far

The Judiciary 171

as I can now recall the tiain of my own ideas, the expression
was suggested by a reflection upon the laws of the Western
States, respecting title to land. We hear often in this House
of "jufficial legislation." If any such thing exist in this coun
try, an mstance of it doubtiess is to be found in the land laws
of some of the Western States. In Kentucky, for example,
titles to the soU appear to depend, to a very great extent, upon
a series of jufficial decisions, growing out of an act of the Legis
lature of Vfrginia passed in 1779, for the sale and disposition of
her public domain. The legislative provision was very short
and general ; and as rights were immediately acquired under it,
the want of legislative detaU coffid only be suppUed by judicial
constiuction and determination. Hence a system has grown
up, which is complex, artificial, and argumentative. I do not
impute blame to the courts ; they had no option but to decide
cases as they arose, upon the best reasons. And although I am
a very fficompetent judge in the case, yet as far as I am in
formed, it appears to me that the courts, both of the State and
of the Uffited States, have appUed just principles to the state of
tffings wffich they found existing. But, Sfr, as a rule laid down
at Washmgton in one of these cases may be expected to affect
five hundred others, is it not obvious that a judge, bred to this
pecuUar system of law, and having also many of these cases in
judgment before ffim in his own cfrcffit, is better enabled to
state, to limit, and to modffy the general rffie, than another
judge, though of equal talents, who shoffid be a stianger to
the decisions of the State tribunals, a stianger to the opinions
and practice of the profession, and a stianger to all cases except
the single one before ffim for judgment ?
The honorable member from Pennsylvania asks, Sfr, whether
a statute of Vermont cannot be as weU understood at Wash
mgton, as at Windsor or Rutland. Why, Sir, put in that shape,
the question has very Uttle meaning. But if the gentleman in
tends to ask, whether a judge who has been for years in the
constant ffischarge of the duties incumbent upon him as the
head of the Cfrcffit Court in Vermont, and who, therefore, has
had the statutes of that State frequently before him, has learned
thefr interpretation by the State judicatures, and thefr connec
tion with other laws, local or general, — if the question be, wheth
er such a judge is not probably more competent to understand

172 Speeches in Congress
that statute than another, who, with no knowledge of its local
interpretation or local appUcation, shall look at its letter for the
ffist time in the haU of the Supreme Court, — if this be the
question, Sfr, which the honorable gentleman means to pro
pound, I cheerfffily refer him to the judgment of this House,
and to ffis own good understandmg, for an answer. Sfr, we
have heard a tone of observation upon this subject which qffite
surprises me. It seems to imply that one inteffigent man is as
fit to be a judge of the Supreme Court as another. The per
ception of the true rffie, and its rightfffi appUcation, whether of
local or general lav/, are supposed to be entirely easy, because
there are many volumes of statutes and of decisions. There
can be no doubt, it seems, that a Supreme Court, however
constituted, woffid readUy understand, in the instance men
tioned, the law of Vermont, because the statutes of Vermont
are accessible. Nor need Loffisiana fear that her pecffiiar code
wffi not be thoroughly and practicaUy known, inasmuch as a
prmted copy wUl be found in the pubUc libraries.
Sfr, I aUude to such arguments, certffinly not for the purpose
of undertaking a refutation of them, but only to express my re
gret that they shoffid have found place in this ffiscussion. 1
have not contended, Sfr, for any thing Uke jufficial representa
tion. I care not in what tea-ms of reproach such an idea be
spoken of. It is none of mine. What I said was, and I stUl
say it, that, with so many States, having various and different
systems, with such a variety of local laws and usages and prac
tices, it is highly important that the Supreme Court shoffid be
so constituted as to aUow a fair prospect, in every case, that
these laws and usages shoffid be known ; and that I know noth
ing so naturaUy conducive to this end, as the knowledge and
experience obtaffied by the judges on the cfrcuits. Let me ask,
Sfr, the members from New England, if they have ever found
any man this side of the North River who thoroughly under
stood our practice of special attachment, our process of garnish
ment, or trustee process, or our mode of extenffing execution
upon land ? And let me ask, at the same time, whether there
be an ffiffividual of the profession, between this place and Maine,
who is, at this moment, competent to the decision of questions
arising under the pecuUar system of land titles of Kentucky or
Tennessee ? If there be such a gentleman, I confess I have not
the honor of his acquaintance.

The Judiciary 173

On the general question of the utiUty of constant occupation
m perfecting the character of a judge, I do not mean now to
effieurge. I am aware that men wffi differ on that subject, ac
corffing to thefr ffifferent means or ffifferent habits of observa
tion. To me it seems as clear as any morffi proposition what
ever. And I would ask the honorable member from Rhode
Island, since he has referred to the judge of the first circffit, and
has spoken of him in terms of respect not undeserved, whether
he supposes that that member of the court, if, fifteen years ago,
on receiving his commission, he had removed to this city, and
had remained here ever sffice, with no other connection with his
profession than an annual session of six weeks in the Supreme
Court, woffid have been the judge he now is ? Sfr, if this ques
tion were proposed to that ffistinguished person himself, and if
he coffid overcome the reluctance which he would naturaUy feel
to speak at aU of ffis own jufficial qualities, I am extiemely mis
taken ff he woffid not refer to his connection Avith the Cfrcuit
Court, and the frequency and variety of his labors there, as effi
cient causes ffi the production of that eminent degree of abUity
with which he now ffischarges the duties of his station.
There is not, Sfr, an entire revolution wrought in the iffind of
a professional man, by appointing him a judge. He is stffi a
lawyer; and ff he have but Uttle to do as a judge, he is, in
effect, a lawyer out of practice. And how is it, Sfr, with law
yers who are not judges, and are yet out of practice ? Let the
opiffion and the common practice of mankind decide this. If
you requfre professional assistance in whatever relates to your
reputation, your property, or your famUy, do you go to him who
is retired from the bar, and who has uffinterrupted leisure to
pursue his readings and reflections ; or do you address yourself
to ffim, on the contiary, who is in the midst of affairs, busy
every day, and every hour in the day, with professional pursffits ?
But I wffi not foUow this topic farther, nor dweU on this part of
the case.
I have afready said, that, in my opinion, the present number
of the court is more convenient than a larger number, for the
hearffig of a certain class of causes. This opinion I do not
retract; for I beUeve it to be correct. But the question is,
whether this inconveffience be not more than balanced by other
advantages. I think it is.

174 Speeches in Congress
It has been again and again urged, that this biU makes no
provision for clearing off the term business of the Supreme
Court ; and stiange mistakes, as it appears to me, are commit
ted, as to the amount of arrears ffi that court. I believe that
the bffi intended to remedy that evU wiU remedy it. I beUeve
there is time enough for the court to go through its lists of
causes here, without interfering with the sessions of the Cfrcuit
Courts ; and, notwithstanding the mathematical calcffiations by
which it has been proved that the proposed addition to the
length of the term woffid enable the court to decide precisely
ffine additional causes, and no more, yet I have authority to say,
that those who have the best means of knowing were of opin
ion, two years ago, that the proposed alteration of the term
woffid enable the court, in two years, to go tlirough aU the
causes before it ready for hearing.
It has been said. Sir, that this measure wffi injure the char
acter of the Supreme Court ; because, as we increase numbers,
we lessen responsibffity in the same proportion. Doubtiess, as
a general proposition, there is great tiuth in this remark. A
court so numerous as to become a popular body woffid be unfit
for the exercise of jufficial functions. Tffis is certain. But then
this general tiuth, although admitted, does not enable us to fix
vdth precision the point at which tffis evU either begins to be
felt at aU, or to become considerable ; stffi less, where it is se
rious or intolerable. If seven be qffite few enough, it may not
be easy to show that ten must necessarUy be a great deal too
many. But there is another view of the case, connected with
what I have said heretofore in this ffiscussion, and wffich fur
nishes, in my mind, a complete answer to this part of the argu
ment ; and that is, that a judge "who has various important inffi
vidual duties to perform in the Circuit Court, and who sits in
the appeUate court with nine others, acts, on the whole, in a
more conspicuous character, and under the pressure of more
immediate and weighty responsibffity, than if he performed no
individual cfrcffit duty, and sat on the appellate bench with six
others only.
But again, it has been argued, that to increase the number of
the Supreme Court is dangerous ; because, with such a prece
dent. Congress may hereafter effect any purpose of its own, m
regard to judicial decisions, by changing essentiaUy the whole

The Judiciary 175
constitution of the court, and overthrowing its settled decis
ions, by augmenting the number of judges. Whenever Con
gress, it is sffid, may ffislike the constitutional opinions and
decisions of the court, it may mould it to its own views, upon
the authority of the present example. But these abuses of
power are not to be anticipated or supposed ; and therefore
no argument resffits from them.
If we were to be aUowed to imagine that the legislature woffid
act in entfre ffisregard of its duty, there are ways enough, cer-
tamly, beside that supposed, in which it might destioy the judi
ciary, as weU as any other branch of the government. The ju
diciary power is conferred, and the Supreme Court estabUshed,
by the Constitution ; but then legislative acts are necessary to
confer jurisffiction on inferior courts, and to regulate proceedings
ffi aU courts. K Congress shoffid neglect the duty of passing
such laws, the jufficial power could not be efficiently exercised.
If, for example, Congress were to repeffi the twenty-fifth section
of the jufficial act of 1789, and make no substitute, there woffid
be no mode by which the decisions of State tiibunals, on ques
tions arisffig under the Constitution and laws of the United
States, coffid be revised in the Supreme Court. Or if they
were to repeal the eleventh section of that act, the power of tiy
ing causes between citizens of different States, in the tiibunals
of tffis government, coffid not be exercised. All other branches
of the government depend, in like manner, for their continuance
in Ufe and being, and for the proper exercise of thefr powers, on
the presumption that the legislature Avffi ffischarge its constitu
tional duties. If it were possible to adopt the opposite suppo
sition, doubtless there are modes enough to which we may look.
to see the subversion both of the courts and the whole Consti
tution. Mr. Speaker, I wffi not detain you by further reply to the va
rious objections which have been made to this bffi. What has
occmrred to me as most important, I have noticed either now or
heretofore ; and I refer the whole to the dispassionate judgment
of the House. Allow me, however. Sir, before I sit down, to
ffisavow, on my own behalf and on behalf of the committee,
aU connection between tffis measure and any opffiions or decis
ions, given or expected, in any causes, or classes of causes, by
the Supreme Court. Of the merits of the case of which early

176 Speeches in Congress
mention was made in the debate, I know nothing. I presume
it was rightly decided, because it was decided by sworn judges,
composing a tiibunal in which the Constitution and the laws
have lodged the power of ffitimate judgment. It woffid be un
worthy, indeed, of the magnitude of this occasion, to bend our
course a hafr's breadth on the one side or the other, either to
favor or to oppose what we might Uke, or dislike, in regard to
particffiar questions. Surely we are not fit for this great work,
if motives of that sort can possibly come near us. I have
forborne, throughout this ffiscussion, aU expression of opinion
on the manner in which the members of the Supreme Court
have heretofore ffischarged, and stffi discharge, the responsible
duties of thefr station. I shoffid feel restiaint and embarrass
ment, were I to make the attempt to express my sentiments on
that point. Professional habits and pursuits connect me with
the court, and I feel that it is not proper that I should speak
here of the personal qualities of its members, either generaUy or
inffividually. They shaU not suffer, at least, from any ffi-timed
or clumsy effiogy of mine. I coffid not, if I would, make them
better known than they are to thefr country ; nor coffid I either
stiengthen or shake the foundation of character and talent upon
which they stand.
But of the judicial branch of the government, and of the insti
tution of the Supreme Court, as the head of that branch, I beg
to say that no man can regard it with more respect and attach
ment than myself. It may have friends more able, it has none
more sincere. No conviction is deeper in my mind, than that
the maintenance of the jufficial power is essential and inffis
pensable to the very being of this government. The Constitu
tion without it woffid be no constitution ; the government, no
government. I am deeply sensible, too, and, as I thmk, every
man must be whose eyes have been open to what has passed
around him for the last twenty years, that the jufficial power is
the protecting power of the whole government. Its position is
upon the outer waU. From the very nature of things and the
frame of the Constitution, it forms the point at which our differ
ent systems of government meet in coffision, when coffision un
happily exists. By the absolute necessity of the case, the mem
bers of the Supreme Court become judges of the extent of
constitutional powers. Thev are ff I may so caU them, the

The Judiciary 177
great arbitiators between contending sovereignties. Every man
is able to see how delicate and how critical must be the exer
cise of such powers in free and popffiar governments. Suspicion
and jealousy are easily excited, under such cfrcumstances, agamst
a body, necessarUy few in number, and possessing by the Con
stitution a permanent tenure of office. WhUe public men in
more popffiar parts of the government may escape without re
buke, notwithstanffing they may sometimes act upon opinions
which are not acceptable, that impuffity is not to be expected ffi
behaff of jufficial tribunals. It cannot but have attiacted obser
vation, that, m the history of our government, the courts have
not been able to avoid severe, and sometimes angry complaint,
for giving thefr sanction to those pubUc measures which the rep
resentatives of the people had adopted without exciting particffiar
ffisqffietude. Members of this and the other house of Congress,
actffig voluntarUy, and in the exercise of their general discretion,
have enacted laws without incurring an uncommon degree of
dislike or resentment ; and yet, when those very laws have been
brought before the court, and the question of thefr vaUffity has
been ffistinctiy raised, and is necessarUy to be determined, the
judges afffimffig the constitutional vaUffity of such acts, although
the occasion was forced upon them, and they were absolutely
bound to express the one opinion or the other, have, neverthe
less, not escaped a severity of reproach bordering upon the very
verge of denunciation. Tffis experience, whUe it teaches us the
dangers which envfron this department, ffisteucts us most per
suasively in its importance. For its own security, and the secu
rity of the other branches of the government, it requfres such an
exteaordffiary union of ffiscretion and ffimness, of abiUty and
moderation, that nothing in the country is too distingffished for
sober sense or too gifted with powerful talent, to fiU the situa
tions belonging to it.

VOL. V. — 12

The Panama Mission'

The following resolution being under consideration, in committee of
the whole House upon the state of the Union, viz. : —
" Resolved, That in the opinion of the House it is expedient to ap
propriate the funds necessary to enable the President of the United
States to send ministers to the Congress of Panama " ; —
Mr. McLane of Delaware submitted the following amendment there
to, viz. : —
" It being understood as the opinion of this House, that, as it has al
ways been the settled policy of this government, in extending our com
mercial relations with foreign nations, to have with them as little politi
cal connection as possible, to preserve peace, commerce, and friendship
with all nations, and to form entangling alliances with none ; the minis
ters who may be sent shall attend at the said Congress in a diplomatic
character merely, and ought not to be authorized to discuss, consider,
or consult, upon any proposition of alliance, offensive or defensive,
between this country and any of the Spanish American governments,
or any stipulation, compact, or declaration, binding the United States in
any way, or to any extent, to resist interference from abroad with the
domestic concerns of the aforesaid governments ; or any measure which
shall commit the present or future neutral rights or duties of these
United States, either as may regard European nations, or between the
several states of Mexico and South America ; leaving the United States
free to adopt, in any event which may happen, affecting the relations
of the South American governments with each other, or with foreign
nations, such measures as the friendly disposition cherished by the
American people towards the people of those states, and the honor and
interest of this nation, may require " ; —
To which Mr. Rives of Virginia proposed to add, after the words
" aforesaid governments," the following : —
* A Speech delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States,
on the 14th of April, 1826.

The Panama Mission 179
" Or any compact or engagement by which the United States shall be
pledged to the Spanish American states, to maintain, by force, the prin
ciple that no part of the American continent is henceforward subject to
colonization by any European power."
The preceding motions to amend being under consideration, Mr. Web
ster addressed the committee as foUows.
Mr. Chairman, — I am not ambitious of ampUfying this dis
cussion. On the contiary, it is my anxious wish to confine the
debate, so far as I partake in it, to the real and material ques
tions before us.
Our judgment of things is Uable, doubtless, to be influenced by
our opiffions of men. It would be affectation in me, or in any
one, to cMm an exemption from this possibUity of bias. I can
say, however, that it has been my smcere purpose to consider
and ffiscuss the present subject with the single view of finding
out what duty it devolves upon me, as a member of the House
of Representatives. If any thing has diverted me from that sole
aim, it has been agamst my intention.
I tffink, Sfr, that there are two questions, and two only, for our
decision. The ffist is, whether the House of Representatives
wffi assume the responsibffity of withholffing the orffinary ap
propriation for carryffig into effect an executive measure, which
the executive department has constitutionaUy instituted. The
second, whether, ff it wffi not withhold the appropriation, it
wffi yet take the responsibffity of interposing, with its own
opinions, dfrections, or instructions, as to the manner in which
this particffiar executive measure shall be conducted.
I am, certainly, in the negative, on both these questions. I
am neither -wiffing to refuse the appropriation, nor am I wffi
ing to limit or restiain the discretion of the executive, before
hand, as to the manner in which it shaU perform its own ap
propriate constitutional duties. And, Sfr, those of us who hold
these opinions have the advantage of being on the common
ffighway of our national poUtics. We propose nothing new;
we suggest no change ; we adhere to the uniform practice of
the government, as I understand it, from its origin. It is for
those, on the other hand, who are in favor of either, or both, of
the propositions, to show us the cogent reasons which recom
mend their adoption. It is thefr duty to satisfy the House and

i8o Speeches in Congre

ss

the countiy that there is something in the present occasion which
calls for such an extiaordinary and unprecedented interference.
The President and Senate have instituted a public mission,
for the purpose of tieating with foreign states. The Constitu
tion gives to the President the power of appointing, with the
consent of the Senate, ambassadors and other public ministers.
Such appointment is, therefore, a clear and unquestionable ex
ercise of executive power. It is, indeed, less connected with
the appropriate duties of this House, than almost any other ex
ecutive act ; because the office of a pubUc minister is not cre
ated by any statute or law of our own government. It exists
under the law of nations, and is recognized as existing by our
Constitution. The acts of Congress, indeed, limit the salaries
of pubUc ministers ; but they do no more. Every thing else in
regard to the appointment of pubUc ministers, — thefr numbers,
the time of thefr appointment, and the negotiations contemplated
in such appointments, — is matter for executive discretion. Ev
ery new appointment to supply vacancies in existing missions
is under the same authority. There are, indeed, what we com
monly term standing missions, so known in the practice of the
government, but they are not made permanent by any law. All
missions rest on the same ground. Now the question is, wheth
er, the President and Senate having created this mission, or, in
other words, having appointed the ministers, in the exercise of
thefr undoubted constitutional power, this House wUl take upon
itseff the responsibffity of defeatffig its objects, and rendering
this exercise of executive power void ?
By voting the salaries in the orffinary way, we assume, as it
seems to me, no responsibffity whatever. We merely empower
another branch of the government to ffischarge its own appro
priate duties, in that mode which seems to itseff most conducive
to the pubUc interests. We are, by so voting, no more responsi
ble for the manner in which the negotiation shaU be conducted,
than we are for the manner in which one of the heads of depart
ment may ffischarge the duties of his office.
On the other hand, if we withhold the ordinary means, we do
mcur a heavy responsibffity. We interfere, as it seems to me,
to prevent the action of the government, accorffing to constitu
tional forms and provisions. It ought constantly to be remem
bered, that our whole power in the case is merely incidental. It

The Panama Mission 18 1
is only because pubUc imffisters must have salaries, like other
officers, and because no salaries can be paid but by our vote,
that the subject is referred to us at aU. The Constitution vests
the power of appoffitment ffi the President and Senate ; the law
gives to the President even the power of fixing the amount of
salary, within certaffi Umits ; and the only question here is upon
the appropriation. There is no doubt that we have the power,
ff we see fit to exercise it, to break up the mission, by withhold
ing the salaries. We have power also to break up the court, by
withholding the salaries of the judges, or to break up the office
of President, by withholffing the salary provided for it by law.
All these things, it is tiue, we have the power to do, since
we hold the keys of the treasury. But, then, can we right
fuUy exercise this power? The gentieman from Pennsylvania,*
with whom I have great pleasure in concurring on this part
of the case, whUe I regret that I differ with ffim on others,
has placed this question in a point of view which cannot be im
proved. These officers do, mdeed, afready exist. They are
pubUc mffiisters. If they were to negotiate a tieaty, and the Sen
ate shoffid ratify it, it would become a law of the land, whether
we voted thefr salaries or not. This shows that the Constitution
never contemplated that the House of Representatives shoffid
act a part in originating negotiations or concludmg tieaties.
I know. Sir, it is a useless labor to ffiscuss the kind of power
which this House incidentaUy holds ffi these cases. Men wffi
ffiffer in that particffiar; and as the forms of public business
and of the Constitution are such that the power may be exer
cised by this House, there wffi always be some, or always may
be some, who feel fficUned to exercise it. For myself, I feel
bound not to step out of my own sphere, and neither to exer
cise or control any authority, of which the Constitution has
intended to lodge the free and unrestiained exercise in other
hands. Cases of extieme necessity, in which a regard to pubUc
safety is to be the supreme law, or rather to take place of aU
law, must be aUowed to provide for themselves when they arise.
Arguments ffiawn from such possible cases wiU shed no Ught on
the general path of our constitutional duty.
Mr. Chafrman, I have an habitual and very sincere respect for
* Mr. Buchanap.

1 82 speeches in Congress
the opffiions of the gentleman from Delaware. And I can say
with truth, that he is the last man in the House from whom I
should have looked for this proposition of amendment, or from
whom I shoffid have expected to hear some of the reasons which
he has given in its support. He says, that, m this matter, the
source from which the measure springs shoffid have no influence
with us whatever. I do not comprehend this ; and I cannot but
tffink the honorable gentleman has been surprised into an ex
pression which does not convey his meaning. Tffis measure
comes from the executive, and it is an appropriate exercise of
executive power. How is it, then, that we are to consider it as
entirely an open question for us, — as ff it were a legislative
measure originating with ourselves ? In deciding whether we
wffi enable the executive to exercise his own duties, are we to
consider whether we shoffid have exercised them in the same way
ourselves ? And if we ffiffer in opinion with the President and
Senate, are we on that account to refuse the orffintuy means ?
I think not; unless we mean to say that we wUl ourselves
exercise aU the powers of the government.
But the gentleman argues, that, although generaUy such a
course woffid not be proper, yet in the present case the Presi
dent has especiaUy referred the matter to our opinion ; that he
has thrown off, or attempted to throw off, ffis own constitutional
responsibffity ; or at least, that he proposes to ffivide it with us ;
that he requests om advice, and that we, having referred that
request to the Committee on Foreign Affafrs, have now received
from that committee thefr report thereon.
Sfr, this appears to me a very mistaken view of the subject;
but if it were aU so, if our advice and opinion had thus been
asked, it would not alter the Une of our duty. We cannot take,
though it were offered, any share in executive duty. We can
not ffivide thefr own proper responsibUity with other branches
of the government. The President cannot properly ask, and we
cannot properly give, our advice, as to the manner in which he
shaU ffischarge his duties. He cannot shift the responsibiUty
from himseff; and we cannot assume it. Such a course, Sfr,
woffid confound all that is ffistinct ffi our respective constitu
tional functions. It woffid break down all known ffivisions of
power, and put an end to aU just responsibffity. If the Presi
dent were to receive dfrections or advice from us, in tffings per-

The Panama Mission 183
taiffing to the duties of his own office, what woffid become of his
responsibffity to us and to the Senate ? We hold the impeach-
ing power. We are to brffig him to tiial in any case of mal-
admiffistiation. The Senate are to judge him by the Constitu
tion and laws ; and it woffid be singular indeed, if, when such
occasion shoffid arise, the party accused shoffid have the means
of sheltering himself under the advice or opinions of his ac
cusers. Nothing can be more incorrect or more dangerous
than tffis pledgffig the House beforehand to any opinion as to
the manner of ffischarging executive duties.
But, Sfr, I see no evidence whatever that the President has
asked us to take this measure upon ourselves, or to ffivide the
responsibffity of it with him. I see no such invitation or re
quest. The Senate having concurred in the mission, the Presi
dent has sent a message requesting the appropriation, m the
usual and common form. In answer to a caU of the House, an
other message is sent, communicating the correspondence, and
settffig forth the objects of the mission. It is contended, that
by this message he asks our advice, or refers the subject to our
opiffion. I do not so understand it. Our concmrence, he says,
by making the appropriation, is subject to our free determina
tion. Doubtless it is so. If we determine at aU, we shall deter
mine freely ; and the message does no more than leave to our
selves to decide how far we feel ourselves bound, either to
support or to thwart the executive department, in the exercise of
its duties. There is no message, no document, no communica
tion to us, which asks for our concurrence, otherwise than as we
shall maffifest it by making the appropriation.
Undoubteffiy, Sfr, the President would be glad to know that
the measure met the approbation of the House. He must be
aware, unquestionably, that aU leaffing measures mainly depend
for success on the support of Congress. StiU, there is no
evidence that on this occasion he has sought to throw off respon
sibffity from himseff, or that he desires us to be answerable for
any tffing beyond the ffischarge of our own constitutional duties.
I have afready said, Sfr, that I know of no precedent for such a
proceedffig as the amendment proposed by the gentleman from
Delaware. None which I tffink analogous has been cited. The
resolution of the House, some years ago, on the subject of the
slave-tiade, is a precedent the other way. A committee had re-

184 Speeches in Congress
ported that, ffi order to put an end to the slave-tiade, a mutual
right of search might be admitted and arranged by negotiation.
But this opiffion was not fficorporated, as the gentleman now
proposes to incorporate his amendment, into the resolution of
the House. The resolution offiy declared, in general terms, that
the President be requested to enter upon such negotiations with
other powers as he might deem expeffient, for the effectual abo
lition of the African slave-tiade. It is smgular enough, and
may serve as an admonition on the present occasion, that, a
negotiation having been concluded, in conformity to the opiffions
expressed, not, indeed, by the House, but by the committee, the
tieaty, when laid before the Senate, was rejected by that body.
The gentleman from Delaware himseff says, that the Con
stitutional responsibffity pertffins alone to the executive depart
ment, and that none other has to do with it, as a pubUc measure.
These admissions seem to me to conclude the question; be
cause, in the ffist place, ff the constitutional responsibffity ap-
pertffins alone to the President, he cannot devolve it on us if he
woffid ; and because, ffi the second place, I see no proof of any in
tention on his part so to devolve it on us, even if he had the power.
Mr. Chafrman, I wffi here take occasion, in order to prevent
misapprehension, to observe, that no one is more convinced than
I am, that it is the right of this House, and often its duty, to
express its general opffiion in regard to questions of foreign
poUcy. Nothing, certainly, is more proper. I have concurred
in such proceeffings, and am ready to do so again. On those
great subjects, for instance, which form the leaffing topics in tffis
discussion, it is not only the right of the House to express its
opinions, but I tffink it its duty to do so, ff it shoffid suppose the
executive to be pursuffig a general course of poUcy which the
House itseff wffi not ffitimately approve. But that is something
entfrely ffifferent from the present suggestion. Here it is pro
posed to decide, by our vote, what shaU be ffiscussed by particu
lar ministers, afready appointed, when they shall meet the min
isters of the other powers. This is not a general expression of
opinion. It is a particular ffirection, or a special instiuction.
Its operation is Umited to the conduct of particular men, on a
particffiar occasion. Such a tffing, Sfr, is wholly unprecedented
in our history. When the House proceeds in the accustomed
way, by general resolution, its sentiments apply as far as ex-

The Panama Mission 185
pressed, to aU pubUc agents, and on aU occasions. They apply
to the whole course of poUcy, and must necessarUy be felt every
where. But if we proceed by way of dfrection to particffiar
mimsters, we must dfrect them all. In short, we must take upon
ourselves to furnish diplomatic instiuctions in aU cases.
We now propose to prescribe what our ministers shaU ffiscuss,
and what they shall not ffiscuss, at Panama. But there is no
subject comffig up for ffiscussion at Panama, which might not
also be proposed for ffiscussion either here, or at Mexico, or in
the capital of Colombia. If we dfrect what our ministers at
Panama shaU or shaU not say on the subject of Mr. Monroe's
declaration, for example, why shoffid we not proceed to say also
what our other mffiisters abroad, or our Secretary at home, shaU
say on the same subject? There is precisely the same reason
for the one as for the other. The course of the House hitherto.
Sir, has not been such. It has expressed its opinions, when it
deemed proper to express them at aU, on great leaffing questions,
by resolution, and in a general form. These general opinions,
beffig thus made known, have doubtless always had, and such
expressions of opinion doubtless always wffi have, thefr effect.
This is the practice of the government. It is a salutary prac
tice ; but ff we carry it further, or rather if we adopt a very ffif
ferent practice, and undertake to prescribe to our pubUc minis
ters what they shaU ffiscuss, and what they shaU not discuss, we
take upon ourselves that which, ffi my judgment, does not at aU
belong to us. I see no more propriety in our deciffing now in
what manner these miffisters shaU discharge thefr duty, than
there woffid have been in our prescribing to the President and
Senate what persons ought to be appointed ministers.
An honorable member from Vfrgiffia,* who spoke some days
ago, seems to go stffi further than the member from Delaware.
He maintaffis, that we may ffistingffish between the various ob
jects contemplated by the executive in the proposed negotiation,
and adopt some and reject others. And this high, deUcate, and
important trust, the gentleman deduces simply from our power
to withhold the miffisters' salaries. The process of the gentle
man's argument appears to me as singffiar as its conclusion.
He founds himself on the legal maxim, that he who has the
* Mr. Rives.

1 86 Speeches in Congress
power to give may annex to the gift whatever conffition or quaU
fication he chooses. This maxim, Sfr, woffid be appUcable to
the present case, if we were the sovereigns of the country ; if
aU power were in our hands ; if the pubUc money were entfrely
our own ; if our appropriation of it were mere grace and favor ;
and if there were no restiaints upon us but our own sovereign
wffi and pleasure. But the argument totaUy forgets that we are
ourselves but pubUc agents ; that our power over the treasury is
but that of stewards over a trust fund ; that we have nothing to
give, and therefore no gffts to Umit or qualify; that it is as
much our duty to appropriate to proper objects, as to withhold
appropriations from such as are improper; and that it is as
much, and as clearly, our duty to appropriate in a proper and
constitutional manner, as to appropriate at aU.
The same honorable member advanced another idea, in which
I cannot concur. He does not admit that confidence is to be
reposed in the executive, on the present occasion, because con
fidence, he argues, impUes only that, not knowing ourselves
what wffi be done in a given case by others, we tiust those who
are to act in it, that they wffi act right ; and as we know the
course likely to be pursued in regard to this subject by the ex
ecutive, confidence can have no place. This seems a singffiar
notion of confidence, and certaiffiy is not my notion of that con
fidence which the Constitution reqiffie* one branch of the gov
ernment to repose in another. The President is not our agent,
but, Uke ourselves, the agent of the people. They have trusted
to his hands the proper duties of his office ; and we are not to
take those duties out of his hands, from any opiffion of our
own that we shoffid execute them better ourselves. The confi
dence which is due from us to the executive, and from the ex
ecutive to us, is not personal, but official and constitutional. It
has nothing to do with individual likings or ffisUkings ; but
results from that division of power among departments, and
those Umitations on the authority of each, which belong to the
nature and frame of our government. It woffid be unfortunate
mdeed, ff our Une of constitutional action were to vibrate
backward and forward, accorffing to our opinions of persons,
swerving this way to-day, from undue attachment, and the other
way to-morrow, from ffisteust or ffislike. This may sometimes
happen from the weakness of our virtues, or the excitement of

The Panama Mission 187
our passions ; but I trust it wffi not be cooUy recommended to
us, as the rightfffi course of public conduct.
It is obvious to remark, Mr. Chafrman, that the Senate have
not undertaken to give dfrections or instructions in this case.
That body is closely connected with the President in executive
measures. Its consent to these very appointments is made ab
solutely necessary by the Constitution ; yet it has not seen fit,
in this or any other case, to take upon itself the responsibffity of
dfrectmg the mode in which the negotiations shoffid be con
ducted. For these reasons, Mr. Chafrman, I am for giving no instiuc
tions, advice, or directions in the case. I prefer leaving it where,
m my judgment, the Constitution has left it ; to executive dis
cretion and executive responsibUity.
But, Sfr, I tffink there are other objections to the amendment.
There are parts of it which I coffid not agree to, ff it were
proper to attach any such condition to our vote. As to aU that
part of the amendment, indeed, which asserts the neutral poUcy
of the Uffited States, and the inexpeffiency of formffig affiances,
no man assents to those sentiments more readUy, or more en
tfrely, than myself. On these pomts we are aU agreed. Such
is our opffiion ; such, the President assures us, ffi terms, is his
opffiion ; such we know to be the opinion of the country. If it
be thought necessary to affirm opinions which no one either
domes or doubts, by a resolution of the House, I shaU cheerfuUy
concur ffi it. But there is one part of the proposed amendment
to which I coffid not agree in any form. I wish to ask the gen
tleman from Delaware himseff to reconsider it. I pray him to
look at it again, and to see whether he means what it expresses
or impUes ; for, on this occasion, I shoffid be more gratified by
seeffig that the honorable gentleman himseff had become sensi
ble that he had faUen ffito some error in this respect, than by
seeing the vote of the House against him by any majority what
ever. That part of the amendment to which I now object is that
which requfres, as a conffition of the resolution before us, that
the miffisters shaU not "be authorized to discuss, consider, or
consffit upon any measure which shaU commit the present or
future neutial rights or duties of these United States, either as
may regard European nations, or between the several states of
Mexico and South America."

i88 Speeches in Congress
I need harffiy repeat, that this amounts to a precise instruc
tion. It being understood that the ministers shaU not be au
thorized to ffiscuss particular subjects, is a mode of speech pre
cisely equivalent to saying, " provided the ministers be instiuct
ed," or " the mffiisters being instructed, not to ffiscuss those sub
jects." Notwithstanffing aU that has been said, or can be said,
about this amendment beffig no more than a general expression
of opffiion, or an abstiact proposition, this part of it is an exact
and definite instiuction. It prescribes to public ministers the
precise manner in which they are to conduct a pubUc negotia
tion ; a duty manffestly and exclusively belonging, in my judg
ment, to the executive, and not to us.
But if we possessed the power to give instiuctions, this in
stiuction woffid not be a proper one to give. Let us examine it.
The ministers shaU not " ffiscuss, consider, or consffit upon any
measure which shaU commit the present or future neutial rights
or duties of these United States, either as may regard European
nations, or between the several states of Mexico and South
America." Now, Sfr, in the ffist place, it is to be observed that they are
not offiy not to agree to any such measure, but they are not to
ffiscuss it. If proposed to them, they are not to give reasons
for decUning it. Indeed, they cannot reject it ; they can only
say they are not authorized to consider it. Would it not be
better. Sir, to leave these agents at Uberty to explain the poUcy
of our government, fffily and clearly, and to show the reasons
which induce us to abstain, as far as possible, from foreign con
nections, and to act in aU things with a scrupulous regard to
the duties of neutrality ?
But again ; they are to ffiscuss no measure which may com
mit our neutial rights or duties. To commit is somewhat in
definite. May they not moffify or in any degree alter our
neutial rights and duties? If not, I harffiy know whether a
common tieaty of commerce coffid be negotiated ; because all
such treaties affect or moffify, more or less, the neutial rights or
duties of the parties ; especiaUy aU such treaties as our habitual
poUcy leads us to form. But I suppose the author of the
amendment uses the word in a larger and higher sense. He
means that the ministers shaU not ffiscuss or consider any meas
ure which may have a tendency, in any degree, to place us in a

The Panama Mission 189
hostile attitude towards any foreign state. And here, again, one
cannot help repeating, that the prohibition is, not agamst propos
ing or assenting to any such measure, but against considering it,
against answering it if proposed, against resisting it with reasons.
But ff this objection were removed, stffi the instiuction coffid
not properly be given. What important or leading measure is
there, connected with our foreign relations, which can be adopt
ed without the possibiUty of committing us to the necessity of a
hostUe attitude ? Any assertion of our plainest rights may, by
possibffity, have that effect. The author of the amendment
seems to suppose that our pacific relations can never be changed
but by our own option. He seems not to be aware that other
states may compel us, in defence of our own rights, to meas
ures which, in thefr ultimate tendency, may commit our neu
tiaUty. Let me ask, if the ministers of other powers, at Pana
ma, shoffid signffy to our agents that it was in contemplation
immeffiately to take some measure which these agents knew to
be hostUe to our poUcy, adverse to our rights, and such as we
coffid not submit to ; should they be left free to speak the senti
ments of thefr government, to protest against the measure, and
to declare that the Uffited States would not see it carried into
effect? Or shoffid they, as this amendment proposes, be en
joined to silence, to let the measure proceed, in order that after
wards, when perhaps we have gone to war to redress the evU, we
may learn that, ff our objections had been fafrly and frankly stat
ed, the step woffid not have been taken ? Look, Sfr, to the very
case of Cuba, the most deUcate and vastiy the most important
poffit ffi aU our foreign relations. Do gentlemen think they
exffibit skill or statesmanship in laying such restiaints as they
propose on our miffisters, in regard to this among other sub
jects ? It has been made matter of complaint, that the execu
tive has not used, afready, a more decisive tone towards Mexico
and Colombia, in regard to thefr designs on this island. Pray,
Sfr, what tone could be taken under these instructions ? Not
one word, not one single word, coffid be said on the subject. If
asked whether the United States would consent to the occupa
tion of that island by those republics, or to its tiansfer by Spain
to a European power, or whether we shoffid resist such occu
pation or such tiansfer, what coffid they say ? " That is a mat
ter we cannot discuss, and cannot consider ; it would commit

190

Speeches in Congress

our neutial relations ; we are not at Uberty to express the senti
ments of our government on the subject ; we have nothing at aU
to say." Is this, Sfr, what the gentiemen wish, or what they
would recommend ?
If, Sir, we give these instructions, and they should be obeyed,
and inconvenience or evU result, who is answerable? And I
suppose it is expected they wffi be obeyed. Certainly it cannot
be intended to give them, and not take the responsibffity of the
consequences, ff they are foUowed. It cannot be intended to
hold the President answerable both ways ; ffrst, to compel him
to obey our instiuctions, and, seconffiy, to make him responsible
if evU comes from obeying them.
Sfr, events may change. If we had the power to give instiuc
tions, and if these proposed instiuctions were proper to be given,
before we arrive at our own homes affafrs may take a new di
rection, and the pubUc interest requfre new and corresponding
orders to our agents abroad.
This is said to be an extiaordinary case, and, on that account,
to justify our interference. If the fact were true, the consequence
would not foUow. If it be the exercise of a power assigned by
the Constitution to the executive, it can make no difference
whether the occasion be common or uncommon. But, in tenth,
there have been much steonger cases for the interference of the
House, where, nevertheless, the House has not interfered. For
example, in the negotiations for peace carried on at Ghent. In
that case. Congress, by both houses, had declared war for cer
tain alleged causes. After the war had lasted some years, the
President, with the advice of the Senate, appointed ministers to
tieat of peace ; and he gave them such instiuctions as he saw
fit. Now, as the war was declared by Congress, and was waged
to obtain certain ends, it would have been plausible to say that
Congress ought to know the instructions under which peace
was to be negotiated, that they might see whether the objects
for which the war was declared had been abandoned. Yet no
such claim was set up. The President gave instructions such
as his judgment ffictated, and neither house asserted any right
of interference.
Sfr, there are gentlemen in this House, opposed to this mis
sion, who, I hope, wiU nevertheless consider this question of
amendment on general constitutional grounds. They are gen-

The Panama Mission 191
tiemen of much estimation in the community, Ukely, I hope,
long to continue in the public service; and I tiust they wUl
weU reflect on the effect of this amendment on the separate
powers and duties of the several departments of the govern
ment. An honorable member from Pennsylvania* has aUuded to
a resolution intioduced by me the session before the last. I
shoffid not have referred to it myself, had he not invited the
reference ; but I am happy in the opportunity of showing how
that resolution coincides with every thing which I say to
day. What was that resolution ? When an interesting people
were struggUng for national existence against a barbarous des
potism, when there were good hopes (hopes yet, I tiust, to be
fuUy reaUzed) of thefr success, and when the Holy AlUance had
pronounced against them certain false and abominable doc
tiines, I moved the House to resolve — what? Simply that
provision ought to be made by law to defray the expense of an
agent or commissioner to that countey, whenever the President
shoffid deem it expeffient to make such appointment. Did I
propose any ffistruction to the President, or any limit on his dis
cretion? None at aU, Sfr; none at aU. What resemblance,
then, can be found between that resolution and this amend
ment? Let those who thffik any such resemblance exists
adopt, if they wiU, the words of the resolution as a substitute
for tffis amendment. We shall glaffiy take them.
I am therefore, Mr. Chafrman, agamst the amendment, not
only as not beffig a proper manner of exercising any power be-
longmg to this House, but also as not containing instructions
fit to be given if we possessed the power of givffig them. And
as my vote wUl rest on these grounds, I might terminate my re
marks here; but the ffiscussion has extended over a broader
surface, and, foUowing where others have led, I wUl ask your in
dulgence to a few observations on the more general topics of the
debate. ^ Mr. Chafrman, it is our fortune to be caUed upon to act our
part as pubUc men at a most interesting era in human affafrs.
The short period of your Ufe and of mine has been thick and
crowded with the most important events. Not only new inter
ests and new relations have sprung up among states, but new
* Mr. Hemphill.

192 speeches in Congress
societies, new nations, and families of nations, have risen to take
thefr places and perform their parts in the order and the mter
course of the world. Every man aspiring to the character of a
statesman must endeavor to enlarge his views to meet this new
state of things. He must aim at an adequate comprehension of it,
and instead of being satisfied with that narrow poUtical sagacity,
which, like the power of minute vision, sees smaU things accu
rately, but can see nothing else, he must look to the far horizon,
and embrace in his broad survey whatever the series of recent
events has brought into connection, near or remote, with the
countiy whose interests he stuffies to serve.
We have seen eight states, formed out of colonies on our
own continent, assume the rank of nations. This is a mighty
revolution, and when we consider what an extent of the surface
of the globe they cover, through what climates they extend, what
population they contain, and what new impffises they must de
rive from this change of government, we cannot but perceive
that great effects are likely to be produced on the intercourse
and the interests of the civffized world. Indeed, it has been for
cibly said, by the inteffigent and ffistingffished statesman who
conducts the foreign relations of England,* that when we now
speak of Europe and the world, we mean Europe and America ;
and that the ffifferent systems of these two portions of the globe,
and thefr several and various interests, must be thoroughly stud
ied and nicely balanced by the statesmen of the times.
In many respects. Sir, the European and the American na
tions are aUke. They are aUke Christian states, civiUzed states,
and commercial states. They have access to the same common
fountains of inteffigence; they aU ffiaw from those sources
which belong to the whole civffized world. In knowledge and
letters, in the arts of peace and war, they ffiffer in degrees ; but
they bear, nevertheless, a general resemblance. On the other
hand, in matters of government and social institution, the na
tions on this continent are founded upon principles which never
ffid prevaU, to considerable extent, either at any other time or in
any other place. There has never been presented to the mind
of man a more mteresting subject of contemplation than the
estabUshment of so many nations in America, partaking in the
civilization and in the arts of the Old World, but having left be-
* Mr. Canning.

The Panama Mission 193
hmd them those cumbrous institutions which had their origin in
a dark and mUitary age. Whatsoever European experience has
developed favorable to the freedom and the happiness of man,
whatever European genius has ffivented for his improvement or
gratffication, whatsoever of refinement or poUsh the culture of
European society presents for his adoption and enjoyment, —
aU this is offered to man in America, with the additional advan
tage of the fuU power of erecting forms of government on free
and simple principles, without overturning institutions suited to
times long passed, but too stiongly supported, either by interests
or prejuffices, to be shaken without convulsions. This unprece
dented state of things presents the happiest of aU occasions for
an attempt to estabUsh national intercourse upon improved
principles, upon prmciples tenffing to peace and the mutual
prosperity of nations. In this respect America, the whole of
America, has a ijew career before her. If we look back on the
history of Europe, we see for how great a portion of the last two
centuries her states have been at war for interests connected
maiffiy with her feudffi monarchies. Wars for particular dynas
ties, wars to support or prevent particular successions, wars to
enlarge or curtaU the dominions of particffiar crowns, wars to
support or to ffissolve family affiances, wars to enforce or to
resist reUgious intolerance, — what long and bloody chapters do
not these fiU in the ffistory of European poUtics ! Who does
not see, and who does not rejoice to see, that America has a
glorious chance of escapffig at least these causes of contention ?
Who does not see, and who does not rejoice to see, that, on this
continent, under other forms of government, we have before us
the noble hope of beffig able, by the mere influence of civU Ub
erty and reUgious toleration, to dry up these outpouring foun-
tams of blood, and to extinguish these consuming fires of war.
The general opinion of the age favors such hopes and such
prospects. There is a growing ffisposition to treat the inter
course of nations more like the usefffi intercourse of friends ;
phUosophy, just views of national advantage, good sense, the
ffictates of a common reUgion, and an increasing conviction that
war is not the interest of the human race, aU concur to magnffy
the importance of tffis new accession to the Ust of nations.
We have heard it said, Sfr, that the topic of South American
mdependence is worn out, and threadbare. Such it may be,
VOL. V. — 13

194 Speeches in Congress
Sfr, to those who have contemplated it merely as an article of
news, like the fluctuation of the markets, or the rise and feffi
of stocks. Such it may be to those who can see no conse
quences following from these great events. But whoever has
either understood their present importance, or can at aU esti
mate their future influence, whoever has reflected on the new
relations they introduce with other states, whoever, among our
selves especially, has meditated on the new relations which we
now bear to them, and the stiiking attitude in which we our
selves are now placed, as the oldest of the American nations,
wffi feel that the topic can never be without interest ; and will
be sensible that, whether we are wise enough to perceive it or
not, the estabUshment of South American independence wffi
affect all nations, and ourselves perhaps more than any other,
through aU coming time.
But, Sfr, although the independence of these new states
seems effectuaUy accompUshed, yet a Ungering and hopeless war
is kept up against them bv Spain. This is greatly to be regret
ted by aU nations. To Spain it is, as every reasonable man
sees, useless, and w^ithout hope. To the new states themselves
it is burdensome and afflictive. To the commerce of neutial
nations it is annoying and vexatious. There seems to be some
thing of the pertinacity of the Spanish character in holffing on
in such a desperate course. It reminds us of the seventy years
during which Spain resisted the independence of HoUand. I
think, however, that there is some reason to beUeve that the war
approaches its end. I beUeve that the measures adopted by
our own government have had an effect in tending to produce
that resffit. I understand, at least, that the question of recog
nition has been taken into consideration by the Spanish govern
ment ; and it may be hoped that a war which Spain finds to be
BO expensive, which the whole world teUs her is so hopeless, and
which, if continued, now tffieatens her with new dangers, she
may, ere long, have the prudence to terminate^
Our own course during this contest between Spain and her
colonies is weU known. Though entfrely and stiictly neuteal,
we were ffi favor of early recognition. Our opinions were known
to the affied sovereigns when in congress at Aix-la-ChapeUe
ffi 1818, at which time the affafrs of Spain and her coloffies
were under consideration ; and probably the knov^ledge of those

The Panama Mission 195
sentiments, together with the policy adopted by England, pre
vented any interference by other powers at that time. Yet we
have tieated Spffin with scrupffious delicacy. We acted on the
case as one of civU war. We tieated with the new govern
ments as governments de facto. Not questioning the right of
Spain to reduce them to their old obedience, if she had the
power, we yet held it to be our right to deal with them as with
existing governments in fact, when the moment arrived at which
it became apparent and manffest that the dominion of Spain
over these, her ancient colonies, was at an end. Our right, om
interest, and our duty, aU concurred at that moment to recom
mend the recognition of thefr independence. We accordingly
recognized it.
Now, Sfr, the ffistory of this proposed congress goes back to
an earUer date than that of our recognition. It commences in
1821 ; and one of the tieaties now before us, proposing such a
meeting, that between Colombia and CffiU, was concluded in
Jffiy, 1822, a few months offiy after we had acknowledged the
independence of the new states. The idea originated, doubt
less, in the wish to stiengthen the union among the new govern
ments, and to promote the common cause of aU, the effectual
resistance to Spanish authority. As independence was at that
time thefr leading object, it is natural to suppose that they con
templated tffis mode of mutual intercourse and mutual arrange
ment, as favorable to the concenti-ation of purpose and of ac
tion necessary for the attainment of that object. But this pur
pose of the congress, or this leaffing idea, in which it may be
supposed to have originated, has led, as it seems to me, to great
misapprehensions as to its true character, and great mistakes in
regard to the danger to be_ apprehended from our senffing min
isters to the meeting, i This meeting, Sfr, is a congress ; not a
congress as the word is known to our Constitution and laws,
for we use it in a pecuUar sense ; but as it is known to the law
of nations. A congress, by the law of nations, is but an ap
pointed meeting for the settlement of affairs between different
nations, in which the representatives or agents of each tieat and
negotiate as they are instructed by their own government. In
other words, this congress is a diplomatic meeting. We are
asked to join no government, no legislature, no league, actmg
by votes. It is a congress, such as those of WestphaUa, of

196 Speeches in Congress
Nimeguen, of Ryswick, or of Uteecht ; or such as those which
have been held in Europe in our own time. No nation is a
party to any thing done ffi such assembUes, to which it does not
expressly make itself a party. No one's rights are put at the
ffisposition of any of the rest, or of all the rest. What minis
ters agree to, being afterwards duly ratffied at home, binds thefr
government ; and nothing else binds the government. Whatso
ever is done, to which they do not assent, neither binds the min
isters nor thefr government, any more than if they had not been
present. These truths, Sfr, seem too plain and too commonplace to
be stated. I find my apology only in those misapprehensions
of the character of the meeting to which I have referred both
now and formerly. It has been said that commercial tieaties
are not negotiated at such meetings. Far otherwise is the fact.
Among the earliest of important stipulations made in favor of
commerce and navigation, were those at WestphaUa. What
we caU the tieaty of Utiecht, was a bunffie of tieaties, negotiat
ed at that congress; some of peace, some of boundary, and
others of commerce. Again, it has been said, ffi order to prove
that this meeting is a sort of confederacy, that such assembUes
are out of the way of ordinary negotiation, and are always
founded on, and provided for, by previous tieaties. Pray, Sfr,
what tieaty preceded the congress at Utiecht ? And the meeting
of our pleffipotentiaries with those of England at Ghent, what
was that but a congress ? and what tieaty preceded it ? It is
said, again, that there is no sovereign to whom our miffisters can
be accreffited. Let me ask whether, in the case last cited, our
mffiisters exhibited thefr credentials to the Mayor of Ghent ? Sfr,
the practice of nations in these matters is weU known, and is
free from difficffity. If the government be not present, agents or
plenipotentiaries mterchange thefr credentials. And when it is
sffid that our ministers at Panama wffi be, not ministers, but
deputies, members of a deUberative body, not protected in thefr
pubUc character by the pubUc law, propositions are advanced
of which I see no evidence whatever, and which appear to me
to be whoUy without foundation.
It is contended that tffis congress, by virtue of the tieaties
which the new states have entered ffito, wffi possess powers
other than those of a ffiplomatic character, as between those

The Panama Mission 197
new states themselves. If that were so, it woffid be unimpor
tant to us. The real question here is. What wiU be our rela
tion with those states, by sending ministers to this congress?
Thefr arrangement among themselves will not affect us. Even
if it were a government, like our old Confederation, yet, if its
members had authority to tieat with us in behalf of thefr re
spective nations on subjects on which we have a right to tieat,
the congress might still be a very proper occasion for such ne
gotiations. Do gentlemen forget that the French miffister was
mtioduced to our old Congress, met it in its sessions, carried on
oral ffiscussions with it, and tieated with it in behalf of the
French king ? All that did not make him a member of it, nor
connect ffim at aU with the relations which its members bore to
each other. As he tieated on the subject of carrying on the war
against England, it was, doubtless, hostUe towards that power ;
but this consequence foUowed from the object and nature of the
stipffiations, and not from the manner of the intercourse. The
representatives of these South American states, it is said, wiU
entertain beUigerent counsels at this congress. Be it so ; we
shaU not join in such counsels. At the moment of invitation,
OUT government informed the ministers of those states, that we
coffid not make ourselves a party to the war between them and
Spam, nor to counsels for deliberating on the means of its further
prosecution. If, it is asked, we send iffiffisters to a congress composed alto
gether of beffigerents, is it not a breach of neutraUty? Cer
tainly not ; no man can say it is. Suppose, Sfr, that these
miffisters from the new states, instead of Panama, were to
assemble at Bogota, where we afready have a minister ; thefr
counsels at that place might be beffigerent, whUe the war should
last with Spain. But shoffid we on that account recaU our
miffister from Bogota? The whole argument rests on this;
that because, at the same time and place, the agents of the
South American governments may negotiate about thefr own
relations with each other, in regard to their common war against
Spain, therefore we cannot, at the same time and place, nego
tiate with them, or any of them, upon our own neuteal and com
mercial relations. Tffis proposition, Sfr, cannot be maintained ;
and therefore aU the ffiferences from it faU.
But, Sfr, I see no proof that, as between themselves, the rep-

198 Speeches in Congress
resentatives of the South American states are to possess other
than ffiplomatic powers. I refer to the tieaties, which are essen
tiaUy alike, and which have been often read.
With two exceptions, (which I wffi notice,) the articles of
these tieaties, describing the powers of the congress, are sub
stantiaUy Uke those of the tieaty of Paris, in 1814, providing foi
the congress at Vienna. It was there stipulated that aU the
powers shoffid send plenipotentiaries to Vienna, to regffiate, in
general congress, the arrangements to complete the provisions
of the present tieaty. Now, it might, have been here asked, how
regulate ? How regffiate in general congress ? — regelate by
votes? Sir, nobody asked such questions; simply because it
was to be a congress of plenipotentiaries. The two exceptions
which I have mentioned are, that tffis congress is to act as a
councU, and to interpret tieaties ; but there is nothing in either
of these to be done which may not be done diplomatically.
What is more common than ffiplomatic intercourse, to explaffi
and to interpret tieaties ? Or what more frequent than that na
tions, having a common object, mterchange mutual counsels and
advice, through the medium of thefr respective ministers ? To
brffig tffis matter, Sfr, to the test, let me ask. When these minis
ters assemble at Panama, can they do any tffing but according
to thefr instructions ? Have they any organization, any power
of action, or any rffie of action, common to them aU ? No more,
Sfr, than the respective ministers at the congress of Vienna.
Every thing is settled by the use of the word Plenipotentiary.
That proves the meeting to be diplomatic, and nothing else.
Who ever heard of a plenipotentiary member of the legislature ?
a plenipotentiary burgess of a city ? or a pleffipotentiary knight
of the shire ?
We may ffismiss all fears, Sfr, arising from the nature of this
meeting. Our agents wffi go there, if they go at aU, in the
character of miffisters, protected by the pubUc law, negotiating
only for ourselves, and not caUed on to violate any neutral
duty of thefr own government. If it be that this meeting wffi
have other powers, in consequence of other arrangements be
tween other states, of wffich I see no proof, stffi we shall not be
a party to these arrangements, nor can we be in any way affect
ed by them. As far as this government is concerned, nothffig
can be done but by negotiation, as in other cases.

The Panama Mission

199

It has been affirmed, that this measure, and the sentiments
expressed by the executive relative to its objects, are an acknowl
edged departure from the neuteal poUcy of the United States
Sfr, I deny that there is an acknowledged departure, or any de
parture at all, from the neutial policy of the country. / What do
we mean by our neutial policy ? Not, I suppose, a blind and
stupid indifference to whatever is passing around us ; not a total
disregard to approaching events, or approaching evils, tiU they
meet us fuU in the face. Nor do we mean, by our neutial poUcy,
that we mtend never to assert our rights by force. No, Sfr. We
mean by our poUcy of neutiality, that the great objects of na
tional pursffit with us are connected with peace. We covet no
provinces ; we desire no conquests ; we entertain no ambitious
projects of aggrandizement by war. This is our poUcy. But it
does not foUow from this, that we rely less than other nations
on our own power to vffifficate our own rights. We know that
the last logic of kffigs is also our last logic ; that our own inter
ests must be defended and maintained by our own arm ; and
that peace or war may not always be of our own choosing.
Our neutial poUcy, therefore, not only justffies, but requires, our
anxious attention to the political events which take place in the
world, a skUful perception of their relation to our own concerns,
and an early anticipation of their consequences, and firm and
timely assertion of what we hold to be our own rights and our
own interests. Our neutiality is not a predetermined absti
nence, either from remonstiances, or from force. Our neutral
poUcy is a poUcy that protects neutiaUty, that defends neutrality,
that takes up arms, if need be, for neutiaUty. When it is said,
therefore, that this measure departs from our neuteal policy.
either that poUcy, or the measure itself, is misunderstood. It
implies either that the object or the tendency of the measure is
to involve us ffi the war of other states, which I think cannot
be shown, or that the assertion of our own sentiments, on points
affectmg deeply our own interests, may place us in a hostUe
attitude toward other states, and that therefore we depart from
neutiality ; whereas the truth is, that the decisive assertion and
the firm support of these sentiments may be most essential to
the maintenance of neutrality.
An honorable member from Pennsylvania thinks this congress
wiU bring a dark day over the United States. Doubtless, Sfr, it

200 Speeches in Congress
is an interesting moment in otn history ; but I see no great
proofs of tffick-coming darkness. But the object of the remark
seemed to be to show that the President ffimseff saw difficulties
on aU sides, and, making a choice of evUs, preferred rather to
send ministers to this congress, than to run the risk of exciting
the hostffity of the states by refusing to send. In other words,
the gentleman wished to prove that the President intended an
alUance ; although such intention is expressly disclairnedj
Much commentary has been bestowed on the letters of invi
tation from the ministers. I shaU not go through with verbal
criticisms on these letters. Thefr general import is plain enough.
I shaU not gather together small and minute quotations, taking
a sentence here, a word there, and a syllable in a third place,
dovetailing them into the course of remark, tffi the printed dis
course bristles in every line with inverted commas. I look to
the general tenor of the invitations, and I find that we are asked
to take part only in such things as concern ourselves. I look
sffil more carefuUy to the answers, and I see every proper cau
tion and proper guard. I look to the message, and I see that
nothing is there contemplated likely to involve us in other men's
quarrels, or that may justly give offence to any foreign state.
With this I am satisfied.
I must now ask the indffigence of the committee to an im
portant point in the discussion, I mean the declaration of the
President in 1823.* Not only as a member of the House, but
as a citizen of the countiy, I have an anxious desfre that this
part of our pubUc history shoffid stand in its proper Ught. The
countiy has, in my judgment, a very high honor connected with
that occurrence, which we may maintain, or which we may sac
rifice. I look upon it as a part of its tieasures of reputation ;
and, for one, I intend to guard it.
* In the message of President Monroe to Congress at the commencement of
the session of 1823-24, the following passage occurs: — "In the wars of the
European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken any
part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights
are invaded, or seriously menaced, that we resent injuries or make preparations
for defence. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more
immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened
and impartial observers. The political system of the Allied Powers is essentially
different, in this respect, from that of America. This difference proceeds from
that which exists in their respective governments. And to the defence of our
own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and
matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we

yames Monroe
From a Painting by Gilbert Stuart, in the possession of
Hon. T. Jefferson Coolidge

AWEisDti &<^._BoBton

The Panama Mission 201
Sfr, let us recur to the important poUtical events which led to
that declaration, or accompanied it. In the faU of 1822, the
affied sovereigns held thefr congress at Verona. The great sub
ject of consideration was the condition of Spain, that countey
then beffig under the government of the Cortes. The question
was, whether Ferffinand should be reinstated in all his authority,
by the intervention of foreign force. Russia, Prussia, France,
and Austiia were fficUned to that measure ; England dissented
and protested ; but the course was agreed on, and France, with
the consent of these other Continental powers, took the conduct
of the operation ffito her own hands. In the spring of 1823, a
French army was sent into Spain. Its success was complete.
The popffiar government was overthrown, and Ferffinand re-
estabUshed ffi aU ffis power. Tffis invasion. Sir, was determined
on, and undertaken, precisely on the doctrines which the aUied
monarchs had proclaimed the year before, at Laybach ; that
is, that they had a right to interfere in the concerns of an
other state, and reform its government, in order to prevent the
effects of its bad example ; this bad example, be it remembered,
always beffig the example of free government. Now, Sir, act
mg on tffis prfficiple of supposed dangerous example, and hav
ffig put down the example of the Cortes in Spain, it was nat
ural to inqufre with what eyes they woffid look on the colonies
of Spain, that were following stiU worse examples. Woffid
Kmg Ferffinand and ffis affies be content with what had been
done ffi Spain itseff, or woffid he solicit their aid, and was it
likely they woffid grant it, to subdue his rebeffious American
provinces ?
Sfr it was ffi this posture of affafrs, on an occasion which has
afready been aUuded to, that I ventured to say, early in the ses
sion of December, 1823, that these affied monarchs might possi
bly turn their attention to America ; that America came within
have enjoyed such unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe
it therefore, to candor, and to the amicable relations existing between the United
States and those powers, to declare that we should consider any attempt on their
part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to
our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any Euro
pean power, we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the gov
ernments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose in
dependence we have on great consideration and on just principles acknowledged,
we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or con
trolling in any other manner their destiny, in any other light than as the mani
festation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States."

202 Speeches in Congress
thefr avowed doctrine, and that her examples might very possi
bly atteact thefr notice. The docteines of Laybach were not
limited to any continent. Spain had colonies in America, and
having reformed Spain herself to the teue standard, it was not
impossible that they might see fit to complete the work by rec-
onciUng, in thefr way, the colonies to the mother countey. Now,
Sfr, it ffid so happen, that, as soon as the Spaffish king was
completely reestablished, he invited the cooperation of his al
lies, in regard to South America. In the same month of De
cember, of 1823, a formal invitation was addressed by Spain to
the courts of St. Petersburg, Vienna, Berlin, and Paris, propoa-
ing to establish a conference at Paris, in order that the plenipo
tentiaries there assembled might aid Spain in adjusting the
affafrs of her revolted provinces. These affafrs were proposed to
be adjusted in such manner as should retain the sovereignty of
Spain over them ; and though the cooperation of the allies by-
force of arms was not directly solicited, such was evidently the
object aimed at. The king of Spain, in making this request to
the members of the Holy AUiance, argued as it has been seen
he might argue. He quoted thefr own doctrines of Laybach ;
he pointed out the pernicious example of America ; and he re-
mmded them that thefr success in Spain itself had paved the
way for successfffi operations against the spirit of liberty on this
side of the Atlantic.
The proposed meeting, however, did not take place. Eng
land had afready taken a decided course ; for as early as Octo
ber, Mr. Canffing, in a conference with the French minister in
London, mformed him ffistffictiy and expressly, that England
woffid consider any foreign interference, by force or by menace,
in the ffispute between Spain and the coloffies, as a motive for
recognizing the latter without delay. It is probable this deter
mination of the EngUsh government was known here at the com
mencement of the session of Congress ; and it was under these
cfrcumstances, it was ffi this crisis, that Mr. Monroe's declaration
was made. It was not then ascertained whether a meeting of
the affies woffid or would not take place, to concert with Spain
the means of reestabUshffig her power ; but it was plain enough
they woffid be pressed by Spain to aid her operations ; and it was
plain enough, also, that they had no particffiar liking to what was
taking place on this side of the Atlantic, nor any great disinclina-

The Panama Mission 203
tion to interfere. This was the posture of affairs ; and, Sfr, 1
concur entfrely in the sentiment expressed in the resolution of a
gentleman from Pennsylvania,* that this declaration of Mr. Mon
roe was wise, seasonable, and patiiotic.
It has been said, in the course of this debate, to have been a
loose and vague declaration. It was, I believe, sufficientiy
stuffied. I have understood, from good authority, that it was
considered, weighed, and ffistinctly and decideffiy approved, by
every one of the President's advisers at that time. Our govern
ment coffid not adopt on that occasion precisely the course
which England had taken. England threatened the immeffiate
recognition of the provmces, if the AUies shoffid take part with
Spain agffinst them. We had already recognized them. It re
mained, therefore, only for our government to say how we should
consider a combination of the AlUed Powers, to effect objects in
America, as affecting ourselves ; and the message was intended
to say, what it does say, that we should regard such combina
tion as dangerous to us. Sfr, I agree with those who maintain
the proposition, and I contend against those who deny it, that
the message ffid mean something ; that it meant much ; and 1
maffitain, against both, that the declaration effected much good,
answered the end designed by it, ffid great honor to the foresight
and the spirit of the government, and that it cannot now be
taken back, retiacted, or annuUed, without disgrace. It met.
Sir, with the entfre concurrence and the hearty approbation of
the countiy. The tone wffich it uttered found a corresponding
response ffi the breasts of the free people of the United States.
That people saw, and they rejoiced to see, that, on a fit occa
sion, our weight had been thrown into the right scale, and that,
without departing from our duty, we had done something use
fffi, and something effectual, for the cause of civil Uberty. One
general glow of exffitation, one universal feeling of the gratified
love of liberty, one conscious and proud perception of the con
sideration which the countey possessed, and of the respect and
honor which belonged to it, pervaded all bosoms. Possibly the
pubUc enthusiasm went too far ; it certainly did go far. But,
Sfr, the sentiment which this declaration inspired was not con
fined to ourselves. Its force was felt everywhere, by aU those
who coffid understand its object and foresee its effect. In that
* Mr. Markley

204 Speeches in Congress
very House of Commons of which the gentleman from South
Carolina has spoken with such commendation, how was it re
ceived ? Not only, Sfr, with approbation, but, I may say, with
no Uttle enthusiasm. While the leaffing minister* expressed
his entfre concurrence in the sentiments and opinions of the
American President, his ffistingffished competitor! in that popu
lar body, less restiained by official decorum, and more at Uberty
to give utterance to aU the feeUng of the occasion, declared that
no event had ever created greater joy, exultation, and gratitude
among aU the free men in Europe ; that he felt pride in being
connected by blood and language with the people of the United
States ; that the poUcy disclosed by the message became a
great, a free, and an independent nation ; and that he hoped his
own country would be prevented by no mean pride, or paltey
jealousy, from foUowing so noble and glorious an example.
I It is doubtless true, as I took occasion to observe the other
day, that this declaration must be considered as founded on our
rights, and to spring mainly from a regard to their preservation.
It did not commit us, at aU events, to take up arms on any in
dication of hostile feeling by the powers of Europe towards
South America. If, for example, all the states of Europe had
refused to tiade with South America until her states should
return to thefr former sffiegiance, that would have furnished no
cause of interference to us. Or if an armament had been fur
nished by the Allies to act against provinces the most remote
from us, as Chffi or Buenos Ayres, the ffistance of the scene
of action ffimin ishing our apprehension of danger, and dimin
ishing also our means of effectual interposition, might stiU
have left us to content ourselves with remonstiance. But a
very different case would have arisen, if an army, eqffipped and
maintained by these powers, had been landed on the shores of
the Gffif of Mexico, and commenced the war in our own imme
ffiate neighborhood. Such an event might justly be regarded
as dangerous to ourselves, and, on that ground, call for decided
and immeffiate interference by us. The sentiments and the
poUcy announced by the declaration, thus understood, were,
therefore, in stiict conformity to our duties and our interegfe^
Sfr, I look on the message of December, 1823, as forming a
bright page in our history. I wffi help neither to erase it nor tear
• Mr. Canning. \ Mr. Brougham.

The Panama Mission 205
Lt out ; nor shaU it be, by any act of mine, blurred or blotted.
It did honor to the sagacity of the government, and I wffi not
ffiminish that honor. It elevated the hopes, and gratified the
patiiotism, of the people. Over those hopes I wffi not bring a
mUdew ; nor wUl I put that gratffied patriotism to shame.
But how shoffid it happen, Sfr, that there should now be such
a new-born fear on the subject of this declaration? The crisis
is over ; the danger is past. At the time it was made, there was
real ground for apprehension ; now there is none. It was then
possible, perhaps not improbable, that the Allied Powers might ffi-
terfere with America. There is now no ground for any such fear.
Most of the gentlemen who have now spoken on the subject were
at that time here. They aU heard the declaration. Not one of
them complaffied. And yet now, when aU danger is over, we
are vehemently warned agffinst the sentiments of the declaration.
To avoid this apparent inconsistency, it is, however, contend
ed, that new force has been recently given to this declaration.
But of this I see no evidence whatever. I see nothing in any
ffistructions or commuffications from our government changing
the character of that declaration in any degree. There is, as I
have before said, in one of Mr. Poinsett's letters, an inaccuracy
of expression. If he has recited correctly his conversation with
the Mexican miffister, he ffid go too far, farther than any instruc
tion warranted. But, taking his whole correspondence together,
it is qffite manffest that he has deceived nobody, and that he has
not comimtted the country. On the subject of a pledge, he put
the Mexican rffiffister entfrely right. He stated to him ffistinctly,
that this government had given no pledge which others coffid
caU upon it to redeem. What coffid be more expUcit ? Again,
Sfr, it is plain that Mexico thought us under no greater pledge
than England ; for the letters to the EngUsh and American min
isters, requesting interference, were in precisely the same words.
When this passage in Mr. Poinsett's letter was first noticed, we
were assured there was and must be some other authority for it.
It was confidently said he had instiuctions authorizing it in his
pocket. It turns out otherwise. As Uttle ground is there to
complam of any thing in the Secretary's letter to Mr. Poinsett,
It seems to me to be precisely what it should be. It does not,
as has been aUeged, propose any cooperation between the gov
ernment of Mexico and our own. Nothing like it. It instructs

2o6 Speeches in Congress
our ministers to bring to the notice of the Mexican government
the Une of poUcy which we have marked out for ourselves, act
mg on our own grounds, and for our own interests ; and to sug
gest to that government, acting on its own ground, and for its
own interests, the propriety of foUowing a simUar course. Here,
Sfr, is no affiance, nor even any cooperation.
So, again, as to the correspondence which refers to the appear
ance of the French fleet in the West India seas. Be it remem
bered that our government was contending, in the course of this
correspondence with Mexico, for an equality in matters of com
merce. It insisted on being placed, ffi this respect, on the same
footing as the other Spanish American states. To enforce this
claim, our known friendly sentiments towards Mexico, as weU
as to the rest of the new states, were suggested, and properly
suggested. Mexico was reminded of the timely declaration
which had been made of these sentiments. She was reminded
that she herself had been weU incUned to claim the benefit re
sulting from that declaration, when a French fleet appeared in
the neighboring seas ; and she was referred to the course adopted
by our government on that occasion, with an intimation that
she might learn from it how the same government woffid have
acted if other possible contingencies had happened. What is
there in aU this of any renewed pledge, or what is there of any
thing beyond the true line of our poUcy ? Do gentlemen mean
to say that the communication made to France, on this occasion,
was improper? Do they mean to repel and repudiate that
declaration ? That declaration was, that we coffid not see Cuba
tiansferred from Spain to another European power. If the
House mean to contiaffict that, be it so. If it do not, then, as
the government had acted properly in this case, it ffid furnish
ground to believe it woffid act properly, also, in other cases, when
they arose. And the reference to this incident or occurrence by
the Secretary was pertinent to the argument which he was
pressing on the Mexican government.
I have but a word to say on the subject of the declaration
against European colonization in America. The late President
seems to have thought the occasion used by him for that pur
pose to be a proper one for the open avowal of a principle which
had afready been acted on. Great and practical inconveffiences,
it was feared, might be apprehended from the establishment of

The Panama Mission 207
new colonies in America, having a European origin and a Eu
ropean connection. Attempts of that kind, it was obvious,
might possibly be made, amidst the changes that were taking
place in Mexico, as weU as in the more southern states. Mex
ico bounds us, on a vast length of Une, from the Gffif of Mexico
to the Pacffic Ocean. There are many reasons why it shoffid
not be desfred by us, that an estabUshment, under the protection
of a different power, shoffid occupy any portion of that space.
We have a general interest, that, through aU the vast territories
rescued from the dominion of Spain, our commerce may find its
way, protected by tieaties with governments existing on the
spot. These views, and others of a simUar character, rendered
it highly desfrable to us, that these new states shoffid settle it,
as a part of thefr policy, not to aUow colonization within thefr
respective territories. True, indeed, we ffid not need thefr aid
to assist us in maintaming such a course for ourselves ; but we
had an ffiterest in thefr assertion and support of the principle as
appUcable to their own territories.
I now proceed, Mr. Chafrman, to a few remarks on the subject
of Cuba, the most important point of our foreign relations. It
is the hmge on which interesting events may possibly turn. I
pray gentlemen to review thefr opinions on this subject before
they fffily commit themselves. I understood the honorable
member from South CaroUna to say, that ff Spain chose to
tiansfer this island to any power in Europe, she had a right to
do so, and we coffid not interfere to prevent it. Sfr, this is a
deUcate subject. I hardly feel competent to tieat it as it de
serves ; and I am not quite wiffing to state here aU that I think
about it. I must, however, ffissent from the opinion of the gen
tleman from South CaroUna. The rights of nations, on subjects
of this kmd, are necessarily very much modffied by cfrcumstances,
Because England or France coffid not rightfuUy complain of the
tiansfer of Florida to us, it by no means foUows, as the gentle
man supposes, that we coffid not complain of the cession of Cu
ba to one of them. The plain ffifference is, that the teansfer of
Florida to us was not dangerous to the safety of either of those
nations, nor fatal to any of thefr great and essential interests.
Proximity of position, neighborhood, whatever augments the
power of injuring and annoying, very properly belong to the con
sideration of all cases of this kind. The greater or less facffity

2o8 Speeches in Congress
of access itself is of consideration in such questions, because il
brings, or may bring, weighty consequences with it. It justffies,
for these reasons and on these grounds, what otherwise might
never be thought of. By negotiation with a foreign power, Mr.
Jefferson obtaffied a province. Without any alteration of om
Constitution, we have made it part of the United States, and its
Senators and Representatives, now coming from several States,
are here among us. Now, Sir, ff, instead of being Louisiana,
tffis had been one of the provinces of Spain proper, or one of her
South American colonies, he must have been a madman that
shoffid have proposed such an acquisition. A high conviction of
its convenience, arising from proximity and from close natural
connection, alone reconcUed the countey to the measure. Con
siderations of the same sort have weight in other cases.
An honorable member from Kentucky * argues, that although
we might rightfuUy prevent another power from taking Cuba
from Spain by force, yet, ff Spain should choose to make the
voluntary teansfer, we shoffid have no right whatever to in
terfere. Sfr, this is a ffistinction without a ffifference. If we
are Ukely to have contention about Cuba, let us ffist weU con
sider what our rights are, and not commit ourselves. And,
/Sfr," if we have any right to interfere at aU, it applies as weU to
the case of a peaceable as to that of a forcible transfer. If na
tions be at war, we are not judges of the question of right in
that war; we must acknowledge ffi both parties the mutual
right of attack and the mutual right of conquest. It is not for
us to set bounds to their belUgerent operations so long as they
do not affect ourselves. Our right to interfere in any such case
is but the exercise of the right of reasonable and necessary seff-
defence. It is a high and deUcate exercise of that right ; one
not to be made but on grounds of steong and manffest reason,
justice, and necessity. The real question is, whether the posses
sion of Cuba by a great maritime power of Einrope woffid seri
ously endanger our own immeffiate security or our essential ffi
terests. I put the question, Sfr, in the language of some of the
best considered state papers of modern times. The general rffie
of national law is, unquestionably, against interference in the
tiansactions of other states. There are, however, acknowledged
* Mr. Wickliffe

The Panama Mission 209
exceptions, growing out of cfrcumstances and founded in those
cfrcumstances. These exceptions, it has been properly said,
cannot without danger be reduced to previous rule, and incor
porated into the ordinary diplomacy of nations. Nevertheless,
they do exist, and must be judged of, when they arise, with a
just regard to our own essential mterests, but in a spfrit of stiict
justice and deUcacy also towards foreign states.
The ground of these exceptions is, as I have already stated,
self-preservation. It is not a sUght ffijury to our interest, it is
not even a great inconvenience, that makes out a case. There
must be danger to our security, or danger, manifest and imim-
nent danger, to our essential rights and our essential interests.
Now, Sfr, let us look at Cuba. I need hardly refer to its pres
ent amount of commercial connection with the United States.
Our statistical tables, I presume, woffid show us that our com
merce with the Havana alone is more in amount than our whole
commercial mtercourse with France and aU her dependencies.
But this is but one part of the case, and not the most important.
Cuba, as is weU said in the report of the Committee of Foreign
Affafrs, is placed in the mouth of the Mississippi. Its occupa
tion by a stiong maritime power woffid be felt, in the ffist mo
ment of hostffity, as far up the Mississippi and the Missouri as
our popffiation extends. It is the commanffing point of the
Guff of Mexico. See, too, how it Ues in the very Une of our
coastwise tiaffic; interposed in the very highway between
New York and New Orleans.
Now, Sfr, who has estimated, or who can estimate, the effect
of a change wffich shoffid place this island in other hands, sub
ject it to new rffies of commercial intercourse, or connect it with
objects of a different and stiff more dangerous nature ? Sfr, I
repeat that I feel no ffisposition to pursue this topic on the pres
ent occasion. My purpose is only to show its importance, and
to beg gentlemen not to prejuffice any rights of the countiy by
assenting to propositions, which, perhaps, it may be necessary
hereafter to review.
And here I differ agaffi with the gentleman from Kentucky.
He tffinks, that, in this as in other cases, we shoffid wait tffi the
event comes, without any previous declaration of our sentiments
upon subjects important to our own rights or our own mterests.
Sfr, such declarations are often the appropriate means of pre-
VOL. V. — 14

210 Speeches in Congress
venting that which, if unprevented, it might be difficffit to re-
ffiess. A great object in holding diplomatic intercourse is
frankly to expose the views and objects of nations, and to pre
vent, by canffid explanation, coffision and war. In this case,
the government had said that we could not assent to the tians
fer of Cuba to another European state. Can we so assent ?
Do gentlemen think we can ? If not, then it was entirely proper
that this intimation should be frankly and seasonably made.
Candor requfred it ; and it woffid have been unpardonable, it
woffid have been injustice, as weU as foUy, to be silent while
we might suppose the tiansaction to be contemplated, and
then to complain of it afterwards. If we shoffid have a sub
sequent right to complain, we have a previous right, equaUy
clear, of protesting; and if the evU be one which, when it
comes, woffid aUow us to apply a remedy, it not offiy allows
us, but it makes it our duty, also to apply prevention.
But, Sfr, while some gentlemen have maintained that on the
subject of a teansfer to any of the European powers the Presi
dent has said too much, others insist that on that of the occupa
tion of the island by Mexico or Colombia he has said and done
too Uttle. I presume. Sir, for my own part, that the strongest
language has been ffirected to the source of greatest danger.
Heretofore that danger was, doubtless, greatest which was ap
prehended from a voluntary teansfer. The other has been met
as it arose ; and, thus far, adequately and sufficiently met.
And here, Sfr, I cannot but say that I never knew a more ex
teaordffiary argument than we have heard on the conduct of the
executive on this part of the case. The President is charged
with fficonsistency ; and in order to make this out, public de
spatches are read, which, it is said, mUitate with one anothfrJ\
Sfr, what are the facts ? This government saw fit to invite
the Emperor of Russia to use his endeavors to bring Spain to
teeat of peace with her revolted colonies. Russia was addressed
on this occasion as the friend of Spain ; and, of course, every ar
gument which it was thought might have influence, or ought to
have influence, either on Russia or Spain, was suggested in the
correspondence. Among other things, the probable loss to Spffin
of Cuba and Porto Rico was urged; and the question was
asked, how it was or could be expected by Spain, that the
Uffited States shoffid interfere to prevent Mexico and Colombia

The Panama Mission 211
from taking those islands from her, since she was thefr enemy,
ffi a pubUc war, and since she pertinaciously, and unreasonably,
as we think, insists on maintaining the war; and since these
islands offered an obvious object of attack. Was not this, Sfr,
a very proper argument to be urged to Spffin ? A copy of this
despatch, it seems, was sent to the Senate in confidence. It has
not been pubUshed by the executive. Now, the aUeged incon
sistency is, that, notwithstanffing tffis letter, the President has
interfered to ffissuade Mexico and Colombia from attacking
Cuba ; that, finding or thinking that those states meffitated such
a purpose, this government has urged them to desist from it.
Sfr, was ever any thing more unreasonable than this charge?
Was it not proper, that, to produce the desfred result of peace,
our government shoffid address different motives to the different
parties in the war ? Was it not its busffiess to set before each
party its dangers and its difficffities in pursuing the war ? And
ff now, by any thffig unexpected, these respective correspond
ences have become pubUc, are these ffifferent views, addressed
thus to different parties and with different objects, to be reUed on
as proof of inconsistency ? It is the stiangest accusation ever
heard of No government riot wholly destitute of common
sense woffid have acted otherwise. We urged the proper mo
tives to both parties. To Spain we urged the probable loss of
Cuba ; we showed her the dangers of its capture by the new
states ; and we asked her to ffiform us on what ground it was
that we coffid interfere to prevent such capture, since she was at
war with those states, and they had an unquestionable right to
attack her in any of her territories; and, especiaUy, she was
asked how she coffid expect good offices from us on this occa
sion, since she fffily understood our opinion to be that she was
persisting ffi the war without or beyond all reason, and with a
sort of desperation. Tffis was the appeal made to the good
sense of Spam, through Russia. But soon afterwards, having
reason to suspect that Colombia and Mexico were actuaUy pre
paring to attack Cuba, and knowing that such an event woffid
most seriously affect us, our government remonsteated against
such meffitated attack, and to the present time it has not been
made. In aU this, who sees any thing either improper or incon
sistent ? For myseff, I tffink that the course pursued showed a
watchful regard to our own interest, and is wholly free from any
imputation either of impropriety or inconsistency.

212 Speeches in Congress
There are other subjects, Sfr, in the President's message,
wffich have been ffiscussed in the debate, but on which I shaU
not long detain the committee.
/"TT cannot be denied, that, from the commencement of our gov-
f ernment, it has been its object to improve and simplify the prin
ciples of national intercourse. It may weU be thought a fit oc
casion to urge these improved principles at a moment when so
many new states are coming into existence, unteammeUed, of
course, with previous and long-estabUshed connections or habits.
Some hopes of benefit connected with these topics are suggest
ed in the message.
The aboUtion of private war on the ocean is also among the
subjects of possible consideration. Tffis is not the ffist time
that that subject has been mentioned. The late President took
occasion to enforce the considerations which he thought recom
mended it. For one, I am not prepared to say how far such
aboUtion may be practicable, or how far it ought to be pursued ;
but there are views belonging to the subject which have not
been, in any degree, answered or considered ffi this ffiscussion.
It is not always the party that has the power of employing the
largest mffitary marine that derives the greatest benefit from
authorizing privateers in war. It is not enough that there are
brave and gallant captors ; there must be somethmg to be cap
tured. Suppose, Sfr, a war between ourselves and any one of
the new states of South America were now existing, who woffid
lose most by the practice of privateering in such a war ? There
woffid be nothing for us to attack, whUe the means of attacking
ns would flow to our enemies from every part of the world.
Capital, ships, and men woffid be abundant ffi aU thefr ports,
and our commerce, spread over every sea, woffid be the destined
prey. So, again, if war should unhappUy spring up among
those states themselves, might it not be for our interest, as being
likely to be much connected by intercourse with aU parties, that
our commerce shoffid be free from the visitation and search of
private armed ships, one of the greatest vexations to neutial
commerce in time of war ? These, Sfr, are some of the consid
erations belonging to tffis subject. I have mentioned them offiy
to show that they well deserve serious attention.
I have not intended to reply to the many observations which
have been submitted to us on the message of the President to

The Panama Mission 213
this House, or that to the Senate. Certainly I am of opinion,
that some of those observations merited an answer, and they
have been answered by others. On two points offiy wffi I make
a remark. It has been sffid, and often repeated, that the Presi
dent, in his message to the Senate, has spoken of his own power
ffi regard to imssions in terms which the Constitution does not
warrant. If gentlemen wffi turn to the message of President
Washffigton relative to the mission to Lisbon,* they wffi see al
most the exact form of expression used in this case. The other
poffit on which I woffid make a remark is the aUegation that an
unfafr use has been made, in the argument of the message, of
General Washffigton's FareweU Address. There woffid be no
end, Sfr, to comments and criticisms of this sort if they were to
be pursued. I offiy observe, that, as it appears to me, the argu
ment of the message, and its use of the FareweU Address, are
not fafrly understood. It is not attempted to be inferred from
the FareweU Address, that, accorffing to the opinion of Wash
ffigton, we ought now to have affiances with foreign states. No
such thing. The Farewell Adffiess recommends to us to ab
stain as much as possible from all sorts of political connection
with the states of Europe, aUegmg as the reason for this advice,
that Europe has a set of primary interests of her own, separate
from ours, and with wffich we have no natural connection. Now
the message argues, and argues trffiy, that, the new South Amer
ican states not having a set of interests of thefr own, growing
out of the balance of power, famUy affiances, and other similar
causes, separate from ours, in the same manner and to the same
degree as the primary interests of Europe were represented to
be, this part of the FareweU Adffiess, aimed at those separate
mterests expressly, ffid not apply in this case. But does the
message infer from this the propriety of affiances with these new
states ? Far from it. It ffifers no such thing. On the contrary,
it disclaims all such purpose, f
There is one other pom^ Sfr, on which common justice re
qufres a word to be said. It has been aUeged that there are
material ffifferences as to the papers sent respectively to the two
houses. All this, as it seems to me, may be easUy and satisfac
torUy explained. In the ffrst place, the instructions of May,
* Sparks's Washington, Vol. XII. p. 92.

214 Speeches in Congress
1828, wffich, it is said, were not sent to the Senate, were ffi
structions on which a tieaty had been afready negotiated;
which tieaty had been subsequently ratffied by the Senate. It
may be presumed, that, when the tieaty was sent to the Senate,
the insteuctions accompanied it ; and if so, they were actuaUy
afready before the Senate ; and this accounts for one of the al
leged differences. In the next place, the letter to Mr. Midffieton,
in Russia, not sent to the House, but now pubUshed by the
Senate, is such a paper as possibly the President might not think
proper to make pubUc. There is evident reason for such an
mference. And, lastly, the correspondence of Mr. Brown, sent
here, but not to the Senate, appears from its date to have been
received after the commuffication to the Senate. Probably when
sent to us, it was also sent, by another message, to that body.
These observations, Sfr, are teffious and uffinteresting. I am
glad to be through with them. And here I might terminate my
remarks, and reUeve the patience, now long and heavUy taxed,
of the committee. But there is one part of the ffiscussion, on
wffich I must ask to be ffidffiged with a few observations.
Pffins, Sfr, have been taken by the honorable member from
Vfrgiffia, to prove that the measure now in contemplation, and,
mdeed, the whole poUcy of the government respecting South
America, is the unhappy resffit of the influence of a gentleman
formerly fffiing the chafr of tffis House. To make out this, he
has referred to certain speeches of that gentleman deUvered here.
He charges him with haAdng become ffimseff affected at an early
day with what he is pleased to call the South American fever ;
and with having infused its banefffi influence into the whole
coimsels of the countey.
K, Sfr, it be teue that that gentleman, prompted by an ardent
love of civU Uberty, felt earUer than others a proper sympathy
for the struggUng coloffies of South America ; or that, acting on
the maxim that revolutions do not go backward, he had the
sagacity to foresee, earUer than others, the successfffi termina
tion of those stiuggles ; ff, thus feeUng, and thus perceivffig, it
feU to him to lead the willing or unwUUng counsels of his coun
try, ffi her manffestations of kindness to the new governments,
and ffi her seasonable recognition of thefr independence, — ff it
be tffis wffich the honorable member imputes to him, ff it be by
this course of pubUc conduct that he has identified his name

The Panama Mission 215
with the cause of South American Uberty, he ought to be es
teemed one of the most fortunate men of the age. If all this be
as is now represented, he has acqufred fame enough. It is
enough for any man thus to have connected himself vrith the
greatest events of the age in which he lives, and to have been
foremost in measures which reflect high honor on his country, in
the judgment of mankind. Sir, it is always with great reluc
tance that I am drawn to speak, ffi my place here, of inffividu
als ; but I coffid not forbear what I have now said, when I hear,
in the House of Representatives, and in this land of free spfrits,
that it is made matter of imputation and of reproach to have
been first to reach forth the hand of welcome and of succor to
new-born nations, struggUng to obtain and to enjoy the bless
ings of Uberty.
We are told that the countiy is deluded and deceived by cab-
aUstic words. CabaUstic words ! If we express an emotion of
pleasure at the resffits of this great action of the spirit of politi
cal Uberty; ff we rejoice at the birth of new repubUcan na
tions, and express our joy by the common terms of regard and
sympathy ; if we feel and signify ffigh gratffication that, through
out this whole continent, men are now Ukely to be blessed by
free and popffiar institutions ; and if, in the uttering of these
sentiments, we happen to speak of sister repubUcs, of the great
American family of nations, or of the poUtical system and forms
of government of tffis hemisphere, then indeed, it seems, we deal
in senseless jargon, or impose on the judgment and feeUng of
the community by cabaUstic words ! Sfr, what is meant by.
tffis ? Is it intended that the people of the United States ought
to be totally mdifferent to the fortunes of these new neighbors ?
Is no change ffi the Ughts in which we are to view them to
be wrought, by thefr having thrown off foreign dominion, estab
Ushed independence, and instituted on our very borders repub
Ucan governments essentiaUy after our own example ?
Sfr, I do not wish to overrate, I do not overrate, the progress
of these new states in the great work of estabUsffing a weU-
secured popffiar Uberty. I know that to be a great attainment,
and I know they are but pupUs in the school. But, thank God,
they are ffi the school. They are caUed to meet difficulties such
as neither we nor our fathers encountered. For these we ought
to make large aUowances. What have we ever known Uke the

21 6 Speeches in Congress
colonial vassalage of these states ? When ffid we or our an
cestors feel, like them, the weight of a poUtical despotism that
presses men to the earth, or of that reUgious intolerance which
would shut up heaven to aU of a ffifferent creed ? Sfr, we sprung
from another stock. We belong to another race. We have
known nothing, we have felt nothing, of the poUtical despotism
of Spain, nor of the heat of her ffies of ffitolerance. No rational
man expects that the South can run the same rapid career as
the North; or that an insurgent province of Spain is in the
same conffition as the English colonies when they ffist asserted
their independence. There is, doubtless, much more to be done
in the ffist than in the last case. But on that account the honor
of the attempt is not less ; and ff aU difficffities shaU be in time
surmounted, it wffi be greater. The work may be more ardu
ous, it is not less noble, because there may be more of igno
rance to enlighten, more of bigotiy to subdue, more of preju
dice to eradicate. If it be a weakness to feel a stiong interest in
the success of these great revolutions, I confess myself guilty of
that weakness. If it be weak to feel that I am an American, to
think that recent events have not only opened new modes of in
tercourse, but have created ffiso new grounds of regard and sym
pathy between ourselves and our neighbors ; if it be weak to feel
that the South, in her present state, is somewhat more emphati
caUy a part of America than when she lay obscure, oppressed,
and unknown, under the grinding bondage of a foreign power ;
ff it be weak to rejoice when, even ffi any corner of the earth,
human beffigs are able to rise from beneath oppression, to erect
themselves, and to enjoy the proper happiness of thefr inteffigent
nature ; — ff this be weak, it is a weakness from which I claim
no exemption.
A day of solemn reteibution now visits the once proud mon
archy of Spain. The preffiction is fulfffied. The spfrit of Mon
tezuma and of the Incas might now weU say, —
" Art thou, too, fallen, Iberia? Do we see
The robber and the murderer weak as we ?
Thou ! that hast wasted earth and dared despise
Alike the wrath and mercy of the skies.
Thy pomp is in the grave ; thy glory laid
Low in the pits thine avarice has made."*
* Cowper's Charity.

The Panama Mission 217
Mr. Chafrman, I will only detain you with one more reflec
tion on this subject. We cannot be so blind, we cannot so shut
up our senses and smother our facffities, as not to see, that, in
the progress and the estabUshment of South American liberty,
omr own example has been among the most stimffiating causes.
In thefr emergencies, they have looked to our experience; in
thefr poUtical institutions, they have foUowed our models; in
thefr deUberations, they have invoked the presiding spfrit of our
own Uberty. They have looked steadUy, in every adversity, to
the great Northern light. In the hour of bloody conffict, they
have remembered the fields which have been consecrated by the
blood of our own fathers ; and when they have faUen, they have
wished offiy to be remembered with them, as men who had
acted thefr parts bravely for the cause of Uberty in the Western
World. Sfr, I have done. If it be weakness to feel the sympathy of
one's nature excited for such men, in such a cause, I am guUty
of that weakness. If it be prudence to meet thefr proffered
civffity, not with reciprocal kindness, but with coldness or with
ffisffit, I choose stffi to foUow where natmral impffise leads, and
to give up that false and mistaken prudence for the voluntary
sentiments of my heart

Revolutionary Officers*

Mr. President, — It has not been my purpose to take any
part in the ffiscussion of this bffi. My opinions in regard to its
general object, I hope, are weU known ; and I had intended to
content myself with a steady and persevering vote in its favor.
But when the moment of finffi decision has come, and the ffivis
ion is so Ukely to be nearly equal, I feel it to be a duty to put,
not only my own vote, but my own earnest wishes also, and
my fervent entieaties to others, into the doubtfffi scale.
It must be admitted. Sir, that the persons for whose benefit
this bffi is designed are, in some respects, peciffiarly unfortunate.
They are compelled to meet not only objections to the principle,
but, whichever way they turn themselves, embarrassing objec
tions also to detaffs. One friend hesitates at this provision, and
another at that ; whUe those who are not friends at aU of course
oppose every tffing, and propose nothing. When it was con
templated, heretofore, to give the petitioners a sum outright ffi
satisfaction of thefr claim, then the argument was, among other
things, that the tieasury coffid not bear so heavy a ffiaught on
its means at the present moment. The plan is accorffingly
changed; an annffity is proposed ; and then the objection changes
also. It is now said, that this is but granting pensions, and that
the pension system has already been carried too far. I confess,
Sfr, I felt wounded, deeply hurt, at the observations of the gen
tieman from Georgia. " So, then," said he, " these modest and
high-minded gentiemen take a pension at last ! " How is it pos
sible that a gentieman of his generosity of character, and gen-
• A Speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 25th of
April, 1828, on the Bill for the Relief of the Surviving Officers of the Revo
lution.

Revolutionary Officers 219
eral kindness of feeUng, can indffige in such a tone of trium
phant frony towards a few old, gray-headed, poor, and broken
warriors of the Revolution I There is, I know, something repul
sive and opprobrious in the name of pension. But God forbid
that I shoffid taunt them with it ! With grief, heart-felt grief,
do I behold the necessity wffich leads these veterans to accept the
bounty of thefr country, in a manner not the most agreeable to
their feeUngs. Worn out and decrepit, represented before us by
those, thefr former brothers ffi arms, who totter along our lob
bies, or stand leaffing on thefr crutches, I, for one, would most
glaffiy support such a measure as should consult at once their
services, thefr years, thefr necessities, and the deUcacy of thefr
sentiments. I woffid glaffiy give, with promptitude and grace,
with gratitude and deUcacy, that which merit has earned and
necessity demands.
Sfr, what are the objections urged agamst this bffi ? Let us
look at them, and see if they be real; let us weigh them, to
know ff they be soUd ; for we are not acting on a sUght matter,
nor is what we do likely to pass unobserved now, or to be for
gotten hereafter. I regard the occasion as one fffil of interest
and fffil of responsibffity. Those inffividuals, the little remnant
of a gaUant band, whose days of youth and manhood were
spent for thefr country ffi the toUs and dangers of the field, are
now before us, poor and old, — intimating thefr wants with re
luctant deUcacy, and asking succor from thefr country with dec
orous soUcitude. How we shaU tieat them it behooves us weU
to consider, not only for thefr sake, but for omr own sake also,
and for the sake of the honor of the countiy. Whatever we do
wffi not be done in a corner. Our constituents -wffi see it ; the
people wffi see it ; the world wffi see it.
Let us canffiffiy examffie, then, the objections wffich have
been raised to tffis bffi, with a ffisposition to yield to them, if
from necessity we must, but to overcome them, ff in fairness
we can.
In the first place, it is said that we ought not to pass the bffi,
because it wffi ffivolve us in a charge of unknown extent. We
are reminded, that, when the general pension law for Revolution
ary soldiers passed, an expense was incurred far beyond what
had been contemplated; that the estimate of the number of
survivmg Revolutionary soldiers proved altogether faUacious;

220 Speeches in Congress
and that, for aught we know, the same mistake may be commit
ted now.
Is this objection weU founded? Let me say, in the ffist place,
that if one measure, right in itself, has gone farther than it was
intended to be carried, for want of accurate provisions and ade
quate guards, this may furnish a very good reason for supplying
such guards and provisions fri another measure, but can afford
no ground at all for rejecting such other measure altogether, if
it be ffi itseff just and reasonable. We shoffid avaU ourselves
of our experience, it seems to me, to correct what has been found
amiss ; and not ffiaw from it an undistinguishing resolution to do
nothing, merely because it has taught us, that, in something we
have afready done, we have acted with too Uttle care. In the
next place, does the fact bear out this objection ? Is there any
difficulty in ascertaining the number of the officers who wUl be
benefited by this bffi, and in estimating the expense, therefore,
which it wffi create? I think there is none. The records ffi
the department of war and the tieasury furnish such evidence
that there is no danger of material mistake. The ffiUgence of
the chafrman of the committee has enabled him to lay the facts
connected with this part of the case so fully and minutely before
the Senate, that I tffink no one can feel serious doubt. Indeed,
it is admitted by the adversaries of the bffi, that this objection
does not apply here with the same force as in the former pen
sion-law. It is admitted that there is a greater facffity in tffis
case than ffi that, in ascertaiffing the number and names of those
who wffi be entitled to receive that bounty.
This objection, then, is not founded in true principle ; and if it
were, it is not sustained by the facts. I think we ought not to
yield to it, unless, (wffich I know is not the sentiment wffich per
vades the Senate,) feeUng that the measure ought not to pass,
we stUl prefer not to place our opposition to it on a ffistinct
and visible ground, but to veU it under vague and general objec
tions. In the second place, it has been objected that the operation
of the bffi wffi be unequal, because aU officers of the same rank
wffi receive equal benefit from it, although they entered the army
at ffifferent times, and were of ffifferent ages. Sfr, is not tffis
that sort of inequaUty which must always exist in every general
provision. Is it possible that any law can descend into such par-

Revolutionary Officers 221
ticffiars ? Woffid there be any reason why it shoffid do so, if
it coffid? The bffi is ffitended for those who, being in the army
m October, 1780, then received a solemn promise of half-pay
for Iffe, on conffition that they woffid continue to serve through
the war. Thefr ground of merit is, that, whensoever they joined
the army, being thus soUcited by thefr country to remain in it,
they at once went for the whole ; they fastened their fortunes
to the standards which they bore, and resolved to continue thefr
mffitary service tffi it shoffid terminate either in their country's
success or in thefr own death. This is their merit and thefr
ground of claim. How long they had been afready in service,
is immaterial and uffimportant. They were then in service; the
salvation of thefr countiy depended on thefr continffing in that
service. Congress saw tffis imperative necessity, and earnestly
soUcited them to remam, and promised the compensation. They
saw the necessity also, and they yielded to it.
But, again, it is said that the present time is not auspicious.
The bffi, it is urged, shoffid not pass now. The venerable mem
ber from North CaroUna says, as I understood him, that he
woffid be almost as willing that the bffi shoffid pass at some
other session, as be ffiscussed at this. He speaks of the dis-
teesses of the country at the present moment, and of another
bffi, now in the Senate, having, as he thinks, the effect of laying
new taxes upon the people. He is for postponement. But it
appears to me, with entfre respect for the honorable member,
that this is one of the cases least of all fit for postponement.
It is not a measure that, ff omitted this year, may as weU be
done next. Before the next year comes, some of those who
need the reUef may be beyond its reach. To postpone for an
other year an annuity to persons afready so aged, — an annuity
founded on the merit of services which were rendered half a
century ago, — to postpone to another whole year a bffi for the
reUef of deservmg men, — proposing, not aggrandizement, but
support, not emolument, but bread, — is a mode of ffisposing of
it in wffich I cannot concur.
But it is argued, in the next place, that the biU ought not to
pass, because those who have spoken in its favor have placed it
on different grounds. They have not agreed, it is said, whether
it is to be regarded as a matter of right, or matter of gratffity,
or bounty. Is there weight in this objection ? If some thffik

22 2 Speeches in Congress
the grant ought to be made, as an exercise of jufficious and
weU-deserved bounty, does it weaken that ground that others
think it founded in stiict right, and that we cannot refuse it
without manifest and palpable mjustice ? Or is it stiange that
those who feel the legal justice of the claim shoffid address to
those who do not feel it considerations of a ffifferent character,
but fit to have weight, and wffich they hope may have weight ?
Nothmg is Hiore plam and natural than the course which tffis
appUcation has taken. The appUcants themselves have placed
it on the ground of equity and law. They advert to the resolve
of 1780, to the commutation of 1783, and to the mode of fund
ing the certfficates. They stand on thefr contiact. Tffis is
perfectly natural. On that basis they can present the argument
themselves. Of what is requfred by justice and equity, they
may reason, even in thefr own case. But when the appUcation
is placed on different grounds ; when personal merit is to be
urged as the foundation of a just and economical bounty ; when
services are to be mentioned, privations recounted, pffins
enumerated, and wounds and scars referred to, the discussion
necessarily devolves upon others. In aU that we have seen
from these officers in the various papers presented by them, it
cannot but be obvious to every one how Uttle is said of per
sonal merit, and how exclusively they confine themselves to
what they tffink thefr rights under the contiact.
I must confess, Sfr, that principles of eqffity, which appear to
me as plain as the sun, are urged by the memoriaUsts them
selves with great caution, and much quaUfication. They ad
vance thefr claim of right without extiavagance or overstiain-
ing ; and they submit to it the unimpassioned sense of justice
of the Senate.
For myself, I am free to say, that, ff it were a case between
inffividual and inffividual, I think the officers would be entitled
to reUef in a court of eqffity. I may be mistaken, but such is
my opinion. My reasons are, that I do not think they had a
fafr option in regard to the commutation of haff-pay. I do not
tffink it was fafrly in thefr power to accept or reject that offer.
The conffition they were in,. and the situation of the countey,
compeUed them to submit to whatever was proposed. In the
next place, it seems to me too evident to be denied, that tbe
five years' fffil pay was never effectuaUy received by them. A

Revolutionary Officers 223
fonnal compUance with the terms of the conteact, not a real
compUance, is at most aU that ever took place. For these rea
sons, I tffink, in an individual case, law and eqffity woffid
reform the settlement. The conscience of chancery woffid deal
with tffis case as with other cases of hard bargains ; of advan
tages obtffined by means of inequaUty of situation ; of acknowl
edged debts, compounded from necessity, or compromised with
out satisfaction. But although such would be my views of tffis
claim, as between man and man, I do not place my vote for this
bffi on that ground. I see the consequence of adnutting the
claim, on the foundation of stiict right. I see at once, that, on
that ground, the hefrs of the dead woffid claim, as weU as the
Uvmg ; and that other pubUc creffitors, as well as these holders
of commutation certfficates, woffid also have whereof to com
plain. I know it is altogether impossible to open the accounts
of the Revolution, and to think of domg justice to every body.
Much of sufferffig there necessarily was, that can never be paid
for ; much of loss that can never be repafred. I do not, therefore,
for myseff, rest my vote on grounds leaffing to any such conse
quences. I feel constiained to say, that we cannot do, and
ought not to think of doing, every thing ffi regard to Revolu
tionary debts which iffight be desfrable, ff the whole settiement
were now to be gone over anew.
The honorable member from New York * has stated what I
think the true ground of the bffi. I regard it as an act of ffis-
creet and carefffi bounty, ffiawn forth by meritorious services
and by personal necessities. I cannot argue, in this case, with
the techfficaUty of my profession; and because I do not feel
able to aUow the claim on the ground of mere right, I am not
wilUng, for that reason, to nonsffit the petitioners, as not having
made out thefr case. Suppose we admit, as I do, that, on the
ground of mere right, it woffid not be safe to aUow it ; or, sup
pose that to be admitted for which others contend, that there is
in the case no strict right upon which under any cfrcumstances,
the claim coffid stand ; stffi it does not foUow that there is no
reasonable and proper foundation for it, or that it ought not to
be granted. K it be not founded on strict right, it is not to be
regarded as beffig, for that reason alone, an undeserved gratuity,
* Mr. Van Buren.

224 Speeches in Congress
or the effusion of mere good-wffi. If that which is granted be
not always granted on the ground of absolute right, it does not
foUow that it is granted merely from an arbitiary preference, or
capricious beneficence. In most cases of this sort, mixed con
siderations prevail, and ought to prevail. Some consideration is
due to the claim of right ; much to that of merit and service ;
and more to that of personal necessity. If I knew that aU the per
sons to be benefited by this bffi were in cfrcumstances of comfort
and competency, I shoffid not support it. But this I know to be
otherwise. I cannot dweU with propriety or deUcacy on tffis part
of the case ; but I feel its force, and I yield to it. A single instance
of affluence, or a few cases where want does not tiead close on
those who are themselves teeaffing close on the borders of the
grave, does not affect the general propriety and necessity of the
measure. I would not ffiaw tffis reason for the bffi into too
much prominence. We aU know it exists ; and we may, I
think, safely act upon it, without so ffiscussing it as to wound,
in old, but sensitive and stffi tffiobbmg bosoms, feeUngs which
education inspfred, the habits of mffitary Ufe cherished, and a
just seff-respect is stffi desfrous to entertaffi. I confess I meet
this claim, not only with a desfre to do something m favor of
these officers, but to do it ffi a manner infficative, not only of
decorum, but of deep respect, — that respect which years, age,
pubUc service, patriotism, and broken fortune, command to spring
up in every manly breast.
It is, then, Sfr, a mixed claim of faith and pubUc gratitude,
of justice and honorable bounty, of merit and benevolence. It
stands on the same foundation as that grant, which no one re
grets, of which aU are proud, made to the ffiusteious foreigner,
who showed himseff so early, and has proved himself so con
stantly and zealously, a friend to our countiy.
Then, agaffi, it is objected, that the mffitia have a claim upon
us; that they fought at the side of the regffiar solffiers, and
ought to share in the countiy's remembrance. But it is known
to be impossible to carry the measure to such an extent as to
embrace the mffitia ; and it is plain, too, that the cases are ffif
ferent. The bffi, as I have afready said, confines itseff to those
who served not occasionaUy, not temporarUy, but permanently ;
who aUowed themselves to be counted on as men who were to
see the contest through, last as long as it might ; and who have

Revolutionary Officers 225
made the phrase "'listing during the war" a proverbial ex
pression, signffying unalterable devotion to our cause, through
good fortune and ffi fortune, tUl it reaches its close. This is a
plain distinction ; and although, perhaps, I might wish to do
more, I see good ground to stop here for the present, if we must
stop anywhere. The mffitia who fought at Concord, at Lexing
ton, and at Bunker's HiU, have been aUuded to, in the course of
this debate, m terms of well-deserved praise. Be assured. Sir,
there coffid with difficffity be found a man who ffiew his sword,
or carried his musket, at Concord, at Lexington, or Bunker's
Hffi, who woffid wish you to reject this biU. They might ask
you to do more, but never to refrain from doing this. Would
to God they were assembled here, and had the fate of the bffi in
thefr own hands ! Woffid to God the question of its passage
were to be put to them ! They woffid afffim it, with a unity of
acclamation that woffid rend the roof of the Capitol.
I support the measure, then, Mr. President, because I think it
a proper and jufficious exercise of weU-merited national bounty.
I think, too, the general sentiment of my own constituents, and
of the country, is ffi favor of it. I beUeve the member from
North CaroUna ffimseff admitted, that an increasffig desire that
somethmg shoffid be done for the Revolutionary officers mani
fested itseff in the community. The bffi wffi make no imme
ffiate or great ffiaught on the tieasury. It wUl not derange the
finances. If I had supposed that the state of the treasury woffid
have been urged against the passage of this bffi, I shoffid not
have voted for the Delaware breakwater, because that might
have been commenced next year ; nor for the whole of the sums
wffich have been granted for fortifications; for thefr advance
ment with a Uttle more or a Uttle less of rapiffity is not of the
ffist necessity. But the present case is urgent. What we do
shoffid be done qffickly.
Mr. President, aUow me to repeat, that neither the subject nor
the occasion is an orffinary one. Our own feUow-citizens do
not so consider it ; the world wffi not so regard it. A few de
serving solffiers are before us, who served thefr countey faithfiffiy
tffiough a seven years' war. That war was a civil war. It was
commenced on principle, and sustained by every sacrifice, on
the great ground of civU liberty. They fought bravely, and bled
freely. The cause succeeded, and the country teiumphed. But
VOL. V. — 15

226 Speeches in Congress
the conffition of things ffid not aUow that countiy, sensible as
it was to thefr services and merits, to do them the full justice
wffich it desfred. It coffid not entfrely fulfil its engagements.
The army was to be disbanded ; but it was unpaid. It was to
lay down its own power ; but there was no government with
adequate power to perform what had been promised to it. In
this critical moment, what is its conduct ? Does it ffisgrace its
ffigh character? Is temptation able to seduce it? Does it
speak of righting itseff? Does it undertake to reffiess its own
wrongs by its own sword ? Does it lose its patiiotism in its
deep sense of injury and injustice? Does mUitary ambition
cause its integrity to swerve ? Far, far otherwise.
It had fffithfffily served and saved the countiy ; and to that
countiy it now referred, with unhesitating confidence, its claim
and its complamts. It laid down its arms with alacrity ; it min
gled itself with the mass of the community; and it waited tffi,
in better times, and under a new government, its services might
be rewarded, and the promises made to it fuffiUed. Sir, this ex
ample is worth more, far more, to the cause of civU Uberty, than
this biU wffi cost us. We can harffiy recur to it too often, or
dweU on it too much, for the honor of our countiy and of its
defenders. AUow me to say, again, that meritorious service in
civU war is worthy of pecffiiar consideration ; not only because
there is, in such wars, usually less power to restiffin irregffiarities,
but because, also, they expose aU prominent actors in them to
ffifferent kinds of danger. It is rebeffion as weU as war. Those
who engage in it must look, not only to the dangers of the field,
but to confiscation also, and attainder, and ignominious death.
With no efficient and settled government, either to sustain or
to contiol them, and with every sort of danger before them, it is
great merit to have conducted themselves with fideUty to the
countiy, under every ffiscouragement on the one hand, and with
unconquerable bravery towards the common enemy on the other.
Such, Sfr, was the conduct of the officers and solffiers of the Rev
olutionary army.
I woffid not, and do not, underrate the services or the suffer
ings of others. I know weU, that in the Revolutionary contest
aU made sacrifices, and aU endured sufferings ; as weU those who
paid for service, as those who performed it. I know that, in the
records of aU the Uttle municipaUties of New England, abundant

Revolutionary Officers 227
proof exists of the zeal with which the cause was espoused, and
the sacrffices with which it was cheerfuUy maintained. I have
often there read, with absolute astomshment, of the taxes, the
contributions, the heavy subscriptions, sometimes provided for
by ffisposing of the absolute necessaries of Ufe, by which enUst-
ments were procured, and food and clothing furnished. It woffid
be, Sfr, to these same municipaUties, to these same Uttle patri
otic councUs of Revolutionary times, that I shoffid now look, with
most assured confidence, for a hearty support of what this bUl
proposes. There, the scale of Revolutionary merit stands high.
There are stffi those Uving who speak of the 19th of April, and
the 17th of June, without thffiking it necessary to add the year.
These men, one and aU, woffid rejoice to find that those who
stood by the country bravely, through the doubtfffi and perUous
struggle which conducted it to independence and glory, had not
been forgotten in the declme and close of Ufe.
The objects, then, Sfr, of the proposed bounty, are most wor
thy and deserving objects. The services which they rendered
were m the ffighest degree usefffi and important. The countey
to wffich they rendered them is great and prosperous. They
have Uved to see it glorious ; let them not Uve to see it unldnd.
For me, I can give them but my vote and my prayers ; and I
give them both with my whole heart.

Second Speech on the Tariff*

Mr. President, — This subject is surrounded with embarrass
ments on aU sides. Of itseff, however wisely or temperately
tieated, it is fffil of difficffities ; and these difficffities have not
been ffimmished by the particffiar frame of this bffi, nor by the
manner hitherto pursued of proceeffing with it. A ffiversity of
mterests exists, or is supposed to exist, in different parts of the
countiy; this is one sornrce of difficffity. Different opinions
are entertaffied as to the constitutional power of Congress ; this
is another. And then, again, different members of the Senate
have instiuctions which they feel bound to obey, and which
clash with one another. We have this mornffig seen an honor
able member from New York, an important motion being under
consideration, lay his instructions on the table, and point to
them as his power of attorney, and as containing the dfrections
for his vote.
Those who intend to oppose this bffi, under aU circumstances,
and in any or all forms, care not how objectionable it now is, or
how bad it may be made. Others, finffing their own leaffing
objects satisfactorUy secured by it, naturaUy enough press for
ward, without staying to consider deUberately how injuriously
other ffiterests may be affected. AU these causes create embar
rassments, and inspire just fears that a wise and usefffi result is
harffiy to be expected. There seems a stiange ffisposition to
run the hazard of extiemes ; and to forget that, in cases of this
kind, measure, proportion, and degree are objects of inqufry, and
the true rffies of judgment. I have not had the sUghtest wish
* Speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 9th of May
1828, on the Tariff Bill.

Second Speech on the Tariff 229
to ffiscuss the measure ; not beUeving that, in the present state
of things, any good coffid be done by me in that way. But the
frequent declaration that this was altogether a New England
measure, a bffi for securing a monopoly to the capitalists of the
North, and other expressions of a simUar nature, have induced
me to adffiess the Senate on the subject.
New England, Sir, has not been a leader in this poUcy. On
the conteary, she held back herself and teied to hold others back
from it, from the adoption of the Constitution to 1824. Up to
1824, she was accused of sinister and seffish designs, because
she discountenanced the progress of this policy. It was laid to
her charge then, that, ha\ffiig estabUshed her manufactures her
seff, she wished that others shoffid not have the power of rival-
Ung her, and for that reason opposed aU legislative encourage
ment. Under this angry denunciation against her, the act of
1824 passed. Now, the imputation is precisely of an opposite
character. The present measure is pronounced to be exclusively
for the benefit of New England ; to be brought forward by her
agency, and designed to gratify the cupiffity of the proprietors
of her wealthy establishments.
Both charges. Sir, are equaUy without the sUghtest foundation.
The opinion of New England up to 1824 was founded in the
conviction that, on the whole, it was wisest and best, both for
herseff and others, that manufactures shoffid make haste slowly.
She felt a reluctance to trust great interests on the foundation
of government pationage ; for who coffid teU how long such
pationage woffid last, or with what steadiness, skffi, or perse
verance it would continue to be granted? It is now nearly
fifteen years sffice, among the first things which I ever ventured
to say here, I expressed a serious doubt whether this govern
ment was fitted, by its constiuction, to administer aid and pro
tection to particffiar pursffits ; whether, having caUed such pur
sffits into beffig by indications of its favor, it would not after
wards desert them, shoffid teoubles come upon them, and leave
them to their fate. Whether this prediction, the resffit, certain
ly, of chance, and not of sagacity, is about to be fulfilled, remains
to be seen.
At the same time it is true, that, from the very ffist commence
ment of the government, those who have administered its con
cerns have held a tone of encouragement and invitation towards

230 Speeches in Congress
those who shoffid embark in manufactures. AU the Presidents,
I beUeve without exception, have concurred in this general sen
timent ; and the very ffist act of Congress laying duties on
imports adopted the then unusual expedient of a preamble, ap-
parentiy for Uttle other purpose than that of declaring that the
duties which it imposed were laid for the encouragement and
protection of manufactures. When, at the commencement of
the late war, duties were doubled, we were told that we shoffid
fmd a mitigation of the weight of taxation in the new aid and
succor which woffid be thus afforded to our own manufacturing
labor. Like arguments were urged, and prevailed, but not by
the aid of New England votes, when the tariff was afterwards
arranged, at the close of the war in 1816. Finally, after a whole
winter's deUberation, the act of 1824 received the sanction of
both houses of Congress, and settled the poUcy of the country.
What, then, was New England to do ? She was fitted for man
ufacturing operations, by the amount and character of her popu
lation, by her capital, by the vigor and energy of her free labor,
by the skUl, economy, enterprise, and perseverance of her peo
ple. I repeat. What was she under these cfrcumstances to do ?
A great and prosperous rival in her near neighborhood, tffieaten-
ing to ffiaw from her a part, perhaps a great part, of her foreign
commerce ; was she to use, or to neglect, those other means of
seeking her own prosperity which belonged to her character and
her conffition ? Was she to hold out for ever agamst the course
of the government, and see herself losing on one side, and yet
make no effort to sustain herself on the other ? No, Sfr. Noth
ing was left to New England, after the act of 1824, but to con
form herself to the wffi of others. Nothing was left to her, but
to consider that the government had fixed and determined its
own policy ; and that policy was protection.
New England, poor in some respects, in others is as wealthy
as her neighbors. Her soU woffid be held in low estimation by
those who are acquainted with the valley of the Mississippi and
the fertUe plains of the South. But in industi-y, in habits of la
bor, skffi, and ffi accumulated capital, the frffit of two centuries
of mdustiy, she may be said to be rich. After this final declara
tion, tffis solemn promulgation of the poUcy of the government, I
again ask. What was she to do ? Was she to deny herseff the
use of her advantages, natural and acquired? Was she to con-

Second Speech on the Tariff 231
tent herself with useless regrets ? Was she longer to resist what
she coffid no longer prevent ? Or was she, rather, to adapt her
acts to her condition ; and, seeing the policy of the government
thus settled and fixed, to accommodate to it as weU as she could
her own pursffits and her own industiy ? Every man wffi see
that she had no option. Every man wiU confess that there re
mained for her but one course. She not offiy saw this herseff,
but had aU along foreseen, that, if the system of protectffig man
ufactures shoffid be adopted, she must go largely into them. 1
believe, Sfr, almost every man from New England who voted
against the law of 1824 declared that, if, notwithstanding his
opposition to that law, it shoffid stffi pass, there woffid be no al
ternative but to consider the course and poUcy of the govern
ment as then settied and fixed, and to act accordingly. The law
ffid pass ; and a vast increase of investment in manufactmring
estabUshments was the consequence. Those who made such
ffivestments probably entertained not the sUghest doubt that as
much as was promised woffid be effectuaUy granted ; and that
if, owing to any unforeseen occurrence or untoward event, the
benefit designed by the law to any branch of manufactures
shoffid not be reaUzed, it woffid furnish a fafr case for the con
sideration of government. Certffinly they could not expect,
after what had passed, that interests of great magnitude would
be left at the mercy of the very ffist change of cfrcumstances
wffich might occur.
As a general remark, it may be said, that the interests con
cerned in the act of 1824 ffid not complain of thefr conffition
under it, excepting only those connected with the wooUen man
ufactures. These ffid complain, not so much of the act itself
as of a new state of cfrcumstances, unforeseen when the law
passed, but which had now arisen to thwart its beneficial opera
tions as to them, although in one respect, perhaps, the law itself
was thought to be unwisely framed.
Three causes have been generaUy stated as having produced
the ffisappoffitment experienced by the manufacturers of wool
under the law of 1824.
Ffrst, it is aUeged that the price of the raw material has been
raised too high by the act itseff. This poffit had been dis
cussed at the time, and although opinions varied, the resffit, so
far as it depended on this part of the case, though it may be

232 Speeches in Congress
said to have been unexpected, was certffinly not entfrely un
foreseen.* But, seconffiy, the manufacturers imputed thefr ffisappoint-
ment to a reduction of the price of wool in England, which took
place just about the date of the law of 1824. This reduction
was produced by lowering the duty on imported wool from six
pence sterlmg to one penny sterling per pound. The effect of
this is obvious enough ; but in order to see the real extent of the
reduction, it may be convenient to state the matter more partic
ularly. The meanmg of our law was doubtless to give the American
manufacturer an advantage over his EngUsh competitors. Pro
tection must mean this, or it means nothing. The English
manufacturer having certain advantages on his side, such as
the lower price of labor and the lower interest of money, the
object of our law was to counteract these advantages by creat
ing others, in behalf of the American manufacturer. Therefore,
to see what was necessary to be done in order that the Ameri
can manrffacturer might sustain the competition, a comparison
of the respective advantages and disadvantages was to be made.
In this view the very ffist element to be considered was, what is
the cost of the raw material to each party. On this the whole
must materiaUy depend. Now when the law of 1824 passed,
the EngUsh manufacturer paid a duty of sixpence sterUng per
pound on imported wool. But in a very few days afterwards,
this duty was reduced by ParUament from sixpence to a penny.
A reduction of five pence per pound in the price of wool was
estimated in ParUament to be equal to a reduction of twenty-
six per cent, ad valorem on aU imported wool ; and this reduc
tion, it is obvious, had its effect on the price of home-produced
wool also. Almost, then, at the very moment that the framers
of the act of 1824 were raising the price of the raw material
here, as that act ffid raise it, it was lowered in England by the
very great reduction of twenty-six per cent. Of course, this
changed the whole basis of the calcffiation. It wrought a com
plete change in the relative advantages and ffisadvantages of
the EngUsh and American competitors, and threw the prepon
derance of advantage most decidedly on the side of the EngUsh.
• See above, p. 135.

Second Speech on the Tariff 233
If the American manufacturer had not vastly too great a prefer
ence before this reduction took place, it is clear he had too Uttle
afterwards. In a paper which has been presented to the Senate, and often
referred to, — a paper ffistingffished for the abiUty and clearness
with which it enforces general principles, — the Boston Report,
it is clearly proved (what, indeed, is sufficiently obvious from
the mere comparison of dates) that the British government did
not reduce its duty on wool because of our act of 1824. Cer
tainly this is teue ; but the effect of that reduction on our manu
factures was the same precisely as if the British act had been
designed to operate against them, and for no other purpose. I
think it cannot be doubted that our law of 1824, and the re
duction of the wool duty in England, taken together, left our
manufactures in a worse conffition than they were before. If
there was any reasonable ground, therefore, for passing the
law of 1824, there is now the same ground for some other pleas
ure ; and tffis ground, too, is strengthened by the consideration
of the hopes excited, the enterprises undertaken, and the capital
invested, in consequence of that law.
In the last place, it was aUeged by the manufacturers that
they suffered from the mode of coUecting the duties on wooUen
fabrics at the custom-houses. These duties are ad valorem du
ties. Such duties, from the commencement of the government,
have been estimated by reference to the invoice, as fixing the
value at the place whence imported. When not suspected to
be false or fraudffient, the invoice is the regular proof of value.
OriginaUy this was a tolerably safe mode of proceeffing. While
the importation was maffily in the hands of American mer
chants, the mvoice woffid of course, if not false or fraudulent,
express the terms and the price of an actual purchase and sale.
But an invoice is not necessarily an instiument expressing the
sale of goods, and thefr prices. If there be but a list or cata
logue, with prices stated by way of estimate, it is stffi an in
voice, and within the law. Now the suggestion is, that the
EngUsh manufacturer, in making out an invoice, in which prices
are thus stated by himself in the way of estimate merely, is able
to obtain an important advantage over the American merchant
who purchases in the same market, and whose mvoice states,
consequently, the actual prices, on the sale. In proof of this

234 Speeches in Congress
suggestion, it is aUeged that, in the largest importing city in the
Union, a very great proportion, some say nearly aU, of the wool
len fabrics are imported on foreign account. The various papers
which have come before us, praying for a tax on auction sales,
aver that the invoice of the foreign importer is generally much
lower than that of the American importer ; and that, in conse
quence of this and of the practice of sales at auction, the Ameri
can merchant must be driven out of the trade. I cannot answer
for the entire accuracy of these statements, but I have no doubt
there is something of truth in them. The main facts have been
often stated, and I have neither seen nor heard a denial of them.
Is it true, then, that nearly the whole importation of wooUens
is, in the largest importing city, in the hands of foreigners ? Is
it true, as stated, that the invoices of such foreign importers are
generaUy found to be lower than those of the American import
er ? If these things be so, it wffi be admitted that there is rea
son to beUeve that undervaluations do take place, and that some
corrective for the evU should be administered. I am glad to
see that the American merchants themselves begin to bestow
attention upon a subject, as interesting to them as it is to the
manufacturers. Under this state of things, Sfr, the law of the last session was
proposed. It was confined, as I thought properly, to wool and
v/ooUens. It took up the great and leading subject of com
plaint, and notffing else. It was urged, indeed, against that bffi,
that, although much had been said of frauds at the custom-house,
no provision was made in it for the prevention of such frauds.
That is a mistake. The general frame of the bffi was such,
that, if skUfffily drawn and adapted to its purpose, its tendency
to prevent such frauds would be manffest. By the fixing of
prices at successive points of graduation, or minimums, as they
are caUed, the power of evaffing duties by undervaluations woffid
be most materiaUy restrained. If these points, indeed, were suf
ficiently distant, it is obvious the duty woffid assume something
of the certainty and precision of a specffic duty. But this bffi
faUed, and Congress adjourned in March, last year, leaving the
subject where it had found it.
The complaints which had given rise to the biU contffiued ;
and in the course of the summer a meeting of the wool-growers
and wool-manufacturers was held in Pennsylvania, at which

Second Speech on the Tariff 235
a petition to Congress was agreed upon. I do not feel it neces
sary, on behalf of the citizens of Massachusetts, to disclaim a
participation in that meeting. Persons of much worth and re
spectabffity attended it from Massachusetts, and its proceed-
mga and resffits manifested, I think, a degree of temper and
moderation highly creffitable to those who composed it.
But wffile the bUl of last year was confined to that which
alone had been a subject of complaint, the bffi now before us is
of a very different description. It proposes to raise duties on
various other articles besides wool and woollens. It contains
some provisions which bear with unnecessary severity on the
whole community ; others which affect, with pecuUar hardship,
particffiar interests ; wffile both of them benefit nobody and noth
mg but the tieasury. It contains provisions which, with what
ever motive put into it, it is confessed are now kept in for the
very purpose of destioying the bffi altogether ; or with the in
tent to compel those who expect to derive benefit, to feel smart
from it also. Probably such a motive of action has not often
been avowed.
The wool manufacturers think they have made out a case for
the interposition of Congress. They happen to live prfficipaUy
at the North and East ; and ffi a bUl professing to be for their
reUef, other provisions are found, which are supposed (and sup
ported because they are supposed) to be such as wffi press with
pecffiiar hardship on that quarter of the countey. Sir, what can
be expected, but evU, when a temper Uke this prevails ? How
can such a hostUe, retaliatory legislation be recorKjilad to com
mon justice, or common prudence ? Nay, Sfr, this rffie of action
seems carried stffi farther. Not only are clauses found, and con
tffiued in the bffi, which oppress particffiar interests, but taxes
are laid also, which wUl be severely felt by the whole Union ;
and this, too, with the same design, and for the same end before
mentioned, of causing the smart of the bUl to be felt. Of this
description is the molasses tax ; a tax, in my opinion, absurd
and preposterous, in relation to any object of protection, need
lessly oppressive to the whole community, and beneficial no
where on earth but at the treasury. And yet here it is, and here
it is kept, under an idea, conceived in ignorance and cherished
for a short-Uved triumph, that New England wffi be deterred by
this tax from protecting her extensive woollen manufactures ; or

236 Speeches in Congress
if not, that the authors of this policy may at least have the
pleasure, the high pleasure, of perceiving that she feels the ffi
effects of this part of the bffi.
Sfr, let us look for a moment at tffis tax. The molasses im
ported ffito the United States amounts to thirteen mffiions of
gaUons annuaUy. Of this quantity, not more than three mU
lions are ffistffied ; the remaining ten mffiions being consumed,
as an article of wholesome food. The proposed tax is not to
be laid for revenue. That is not pretended. It was not intro
duced for the benefit of the sugar-planters. They are contented
with thefr present condition, and have appUed for nothing.
What, then, was the object? Sir, the original professed object
was to increase, by this new duty on molasses, the consumption
of spfrits ffistffied from grain. Tffis, I say, was the object origi
naUy professed. But in this point of view the measure appears
to me to be preposterous. It is monstious, and out of aU pro
portion and relation of means to ends. It proposes to double
the duty on the ten milUons of gaUons of molasses which are
consumed for food, in order that it may likewise double the duty
on the three miffions which are ffistffied into spirits ; and aU
this for the contingent and doubtfffi purpose of augmenting the
consumption of spfrits ffistffied from grffin. I say contingent
and doubtfffi purpose, because I do not beUeve any such effect
wffi be produced. I do not think a hunffied gaUons more of
spfrits ffistffied from gram wffi find a market in consequence of
this tax on molasses. The debate, here and elsewhere, has
shown that, I think, clearly. But suppose some sUght effect of
that kind should be produced, is it so desfrable an object as that
it should be sought by such means ? Shall we tax food to en
courage intemperance ? ShaU we raise the price of a wholesome
article of sustenance, of daUy consumption, especiaUy among
the poorer classes, in order that we may enjoy a mere chance of
causing these same classes to use more of our home-made
ardent spirits ?
Sfr, the bare statement of this question puts it beyond the
reach of aU argument. No man wffi seriously undertake the
defence of such a tax. It is better, much more canffid certaiffiy,
to admit, as has been admitted, that, obnoxious as it is and
abominable as it is, it is kept in the biU with a special view to
its effects on New England votes and New England interests.

Second Speech on the Tariff 237
The bffi also takes away aU the drawback aUowed by existing
laws on the exportation of spirits ffistffied from molasses ; and
this, it is supposed, and tiffiy supposed, wffi injuriously affect
New England. It wUl have this effect to a considerable degree ;
for the exportation of such spfrits is a part of her trade, and,
though not great in amount, it is a part which mingles usefuUy
with the exportation of other articles, assists to make out an
assorted cargo, and finds a market in the North of Europe, the
Mediterranean, and in South America. This exportation the
bffi proposes entfrely to destroy.
The fficreased duty on molasses, whUe it thus needlessly and
wantoffiy enhances the price to the consumer, may affect also,
in a greater or less degree, the importation of that article ; and
be thus injurious to the commerce of the countiy. The impor
tation of molasses, in exchange for lumber, provisions, and other
articles of our own production, is one of the largest portions of om
West Inffia tiade, — a tiade, it may be added, though of smaU
profit, yet of short voyages, sffited to smaU capitals, employing
many hands and much navigation, and the earUest and oldest
branch of our foreign commerce. That portion of tffis tiade
which we now enjoy is conducted on the freest and most liberal
principles. The exports which sustain it are from the East, the
South, and the West ; every part of the countey having thus an
ffiterest in its continuance and extension. A market for these
exports is of infmitely more importance to any of these por
tions of the countiy, than aU the benefit to be expected from
the supposed fficreased consumption of spfrits ffistffied from
grffin. Yet, Sfr, this tax is to be kept in the bUl, that New England
may be made to feel. Gentlemen who hold it to be whoUy un
constitutional to lay any tax whatever for the purposes intended
by this bffi, corffiaUy vote for this tax. An honorable gentle
man from Maryland * caUs the whole bffi a " bffi of abomina
tions." This tax, he agrees, is one of its abominations, yet he
votes for it. Both the gentlemen from North CaroUna have
signified thefr ffissatisfaction with the bffi, yet they have both
voted to double the tax on molasses. Sir, do gentlemen flatter
themselves that this course of poUcy can answer thefr purposes ?
• Mr. Smith.

238 Speeches in Congress
Do they not perceive that such a mode of proceeding, with a
view to such avowed objects, must waken a spfrit that shaU tieat
taunt with scorn and bid menace defiance ? Do they not know
(if they do not, it is time they did) that a poUcy Uke this,
avowed with such self-satisfaction, persisted in with a deUght
which shoffid offiy accompany the discovery of some new and
wonderful improvement in legislation, wffi compel every New
England man to feel that he is degraded and debased if he does
not resist it ?
Sfr, gentlemen mistake us; they greatly mistake us. To
those who propose to conduct the affafrs of government, and to
enact laws on such principles as these and for such objects as
these. New England, be assured, wffi exhibit, not submission,
but resistance ; not humffiation, but ffisdaffi. Against her, de
pend on it, nothing wffi be gained by intimidation. If you pro
pose to suffer yourselves in order that she may be made to sufler
also, she wffi bid you come on ; she wffi meet chaUenge with
challenge ; she wffi invite you to do your worst, and your best,
and to see who wUl hold out longest. She has offered you every
one of her votes in the Senate to stiike out this tax on molas
ses. You have refused to join her, and to strike it out. With
the aid of the votes of any one Southern State, for example, of
North CaroUna, it coffid have been stiuck out. But North Car
oUna has refused her votes for this purpose. She has voted to
keep the tax in, and to keep it in at the highest rate. And yet,
Sfr, North Carolina, whatever she may tffink of it, is fuUy as
much interested in this tax as Massachusetts. I think, indeed,
she is more interested, and that she wiU feel it more heavUy and
sorely. She is herself a great consumer of the Eirticle, through
out all her classes of popffiation. This increase of the duty wffi
levy on her citizens a new tax of ffity thousand dollars a year,
or more ; and yet her representatives on this floor support the
tax, although they have so often told us that her people are now
poor, and afready borne down with taxes. North CaroUna wffil
feel this tax also in her tiade, for what foreign commerce has
she more usefffi to her than the West Inffia market for her pro
visions and lumber ? And yet the gentiemen from North Caro-
Iffia insist on keeping this tax in the bffi. Let them not, then,
complain. Let them not hereafter call it the work of others. It
is thefr own work. Let them not lay it to the manufactmrers.

Second Speech on the Tariff 239
The manufacturers have had nothing to do with it. Let them
not lay it to the wool-growers. The wool-growers have had
nothing to do with it. Let them not lay it to New England.
New England has done nothing but oppose it, and ask them
to oppose it also. No, Sir ; let them take it to themselves.
Let them enjoy the frffit of their own doings. Let them assign
their motives for thus taxing thefr own constituents, and abide
their judgment ; but do not let them flatter themselves that New
England cannot pay a molasses tax as long as North Carolina
chooses that such a tax shaU be paid.
Sfr, I am sure there is nobody here envious of the prosperity
of New England, or who woffid wish to see it destioyed. But
ff there be such anywhere, I cannot cheer them by holding out
the hope of a speedy accomplishment of their wishes. The
prosperity of New England, like that of other parts of the coun
try, may, doubtless, be affected injuriously by unwise or unjust
laws. It may be impafred, especiaUy, by an unsteady and shfft-
mg poUcy, which fosters particffiar objects to-day, and abandons
them to-morrow. She may advance faster, or slower ; but the
propellmg principle, be assured, is ffi her, deep, fixed, and active.
Her course is onward and forward. The great powers of free
labor, of moral habits, of general education, of good institutions,
of skUl, enterprise, and perseverance, are aU working with her,
and for her ; and on the small surface wffich her popffiation cov
ers, she is destined, I think, to exffibit striking resffits of the oper
ation of these potent causes, in whatever constitutes the happi
ness or the ornament of human society.
Mr. President, tffis tax on molasses wffi benefit the tieasury,
though it wUl benefit nobody else. Our finances wffi, at least,
be improved by it. I assure the gentlemen, we wffi endeavor to
use the funds thus to be raised properly and wisely, and to the
pubUc advantage. We have already passed a bffi for the Dela
ware breakwater ; another is before us, for the improvement of
several of our harbors ; the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal bill has
this moment been brought into the Senate; and next session
we hope to bring forward the breakwater at Nantucket. These
appropriations, Sfr, wiU requfre pretty ample means ; it wffi be'
conveffient to have a weU-suppUed treasury ; and I state for
the especial consolation of the honorable gentlemen from North
Carolina, that so long as they choose to compel thefr constit-

240 Speeches in Congress
uents, and my constituents, to pay a molasses tax, the pro
ceeds thereof shall be appropriated, as far as I am concerned,
to valuable national objects, in useful and necessary works of
internal improvements.
Mr. President, in what I have now said, I have but foUowed
where others have led, and compeUed me to follow. I have but
exhibited to gentlemen the necessary consequences of their own
course of proceeding. But this manner of passing laws is
whoUy against my own judgment, and repugnant to aU my feel
ings. And I would, even now, once more soUcit gentlemen to
consider whether a different course would not be more worthy
of the Senate, and more useful to the countiy. Why shoffid we
not act upon this bffi, article by article, judge fairly of each, re
tain what a majority approves, and reject the rest? If it be, as
the gentleman from Maryland called it, " a biU of abominations,"
why not stiike out as many of the abominations as we can ?
Extieme measures cannot tend to good. They must produce
mischief If a proper and moderate bffi in regard to wool and
woollens had passed last year, we should not now be in our pres
ent situation. If such a bUl, extended perhaps to a few other
articles, if necessity so reqffired, had been prepared and recom
mended at this session, much both of excitement and of evU
would have been avoided.
Nevertheless, Sfr, it is for gentlemen to judge for themselves.
If, when the wool manufacturers think they have a fafr right to
caU on Congress to carry into effect what was intended for them
by the law of 1824, and when there is manifested some ffisposi
tion to comply with what they thus request, the benefit cannot
be granted in any other manner than by inserting it in a sort of
bffi of pains and penalties, a " bffi of abominations," it is not for
me to attempt to reason down what has not been reasoned up ;
but I must content myself with admonishing gentlemen that
thefr poUcy is destined, in aU probabiUty, to terminate in their
own sore disappointment.
I advert once more. Sir, to the subject of wool and wooUens,
for the purpose of showing that, even in respect to that part of
the bffi, the interest mainly protected is not that of the manffiac-
turers. On the contiary, it is that of the wool-growers. The
wool-grower is vastly more benefited than the manufacturer
The interest of the manufacturer is treated as secondary and

Second Speech on the Tariff 241
suborffinate, throughout the biU. Just so much, and no more, is
done for him, as is supposed necessary to enable him to purchase
and manufacture the wool. The agricffitural interest, the farm
ing interest, the interest of the sheep-owner, is the great object
which the biU is calcffiated to benefit, and which it wffi benefit,
if the manufacturer can be kept aUve. A comparison of exist
ing duties with those proposed on the wool and on the cloth,
wUl show how this part of the case stands.
At present, a duty of thirty per cent, ad valorem is laid on aU
wool costing ten cents per pound, or upwards ; and a duty of
fifteen per cent, on aU wool under that price.
The present bffi proposes a specffic duty of four cents per
pound, and also an ad valorem duty of fifty per cent, on all wool
of every description.
The resffit of the combination of these two duties is, that
wool fit for making good cloths, and costing from thirty to forty
cents per pound in the foreign market, wUl pay a duty at least
equal to sixty per cent, ad valorem. And wool costing less than
ten cents in the foreign market wffi pay a duty, on the average,
of a hundred per cent, ad valorem.
Now, Sfr, these heavy duties are laid for the wool-grower.
They are designed to give a spring to agricffiture, by fostering
one of its most important products.
But let us see what is done for the manufacturer, in order to
enable him to manufacture the raw material, at prices so much
enhanced. As the bffi passed the House of Representatives, the advance
of duties on cloths is supposed to have been not more than three
per cent, on the miffimum points. Taking the amount of duty
to be now thirty-seven per cent, ad -valorem on cloths, tffis bffi,
as it came to us, proposed, if that supposition be tiue, only to
carry it up to forty. Amendments here adopted have enhanced
this duty, and are understood to have carried it up to a duty of
forty-five or perhaps fffty per cent, ad valorem. Takmg it at the
highest, the duty on the cloth is raised thirteen per cent. ; whUe
that on wool is raised in some instances thirty, and in some in
stances eighty-five per cent. ; that is, in one case from thirty to
sixty, and ffi the other from fifteen to a hundred. Now the cal
cffiation is said to be true which supposes that a duty of thfrty
per cent, on the raw material enhances by fifteen per cent, the
VOL. V. — 16

242 Speeches in Congress
cost of producing the cloth ; the raw material being estimated
generaUy to be equal to half the expense of the fabric. So that,
whUe by this bill the manufacturer gains thirteen per cent, on
the cloth, he would appear to lose fifteen per cent, on the same
cloth by the increase in the price of the wool. And this would
not only appear to be tiue, but woffid, I suppose, be actuaUy
tiue, were it not that the market may be open to the manufac
turer, under this bffi, for such cloths as may be furnished at
prices intermeffiate between the graduated prices estabUshed by
the bffi.
For example, few or no foreign cloths, it is supposed, costing
more than fifty cents a yard and less than a doUar, wiU be im
ported ; therefore, American cloths worth more than fifty cents,
and less than a doUar, wffi find a market. So of the intervals,
or intermediate spaces, between the other statute prices. In this
mode it may be hoped that the manufacturers may be sustained,
and rendered able to carry on the work of converting the raw
material, the agricffitural product of the countiy, into an article
necessary and fit for use. This statement, I think, sufficiently
shows that no further benefit or advantage is intended for them,
than such as shaU barely enable them to accomplish that pur
pose ; and that the object to which all others have been made to
yield is the advantage of agricffiture.
And yet, Sfr, it is on occasion of a bffi thus framed, that a
loud and ceaseless cry has been raised against what is caUed the
cupiffity, the avarice, the monopolizing spfrit, of New England
manufacturers ! This is one of the main " abominations of the
bill " ; to remedy which it is proposed to keep in the other abom
inations. Under the prospect of advantage held out by the law
of 1824, men have ventured their fortunes, and thefr means of
subsistence for themselves and famiUes, in wooUen manufac
tures. They have ventured investments in objects requfring a
large outlay of capital ; in miUs, houses, water-works, and ex
pensive machinery. Events have occurred, blighting their pros
pects and withering thefr hopes, — events which have deprived
them of that degree of succor which the legislature manifestly
intended. They come here asking for reUef against an unfore
seen occurrence, for remedy against that which Congress, if it
had foreseen, woffid have prevented; and they are told, that
what they ask is an abomination ! They say that an interest

Second Speech on the Tariff 243
important to them, and important to the countiy, and princi
paUy caUed into existence by the government itself, has received
a severe shock, under which it must sink, if the government wffi
not, by reasonable means, endeavor to preserve what it has cre
ated. And they are met with a voUey of hard names, a tfrade
of reproaches, and a loud cry against capitaUsts, specffiators, and
stock-jobbers! For one, I think them hardly tieated ; I think,
and from the beginning have thought, thefr claim to be a fair
one. With how much soever of undue haste, or even of credu-
Uty, they may be thought to have embarked ffi these pursuits,
under the hopes held out by government, I do not feel it to be
just that they shoffid be abandoned to their fate on the ffist ad
verse change of cfrcumstances ; although I have always seen,
and now see, how ffifficult, perhaps I should rather say how im
possible, it is for Congress to act, when such changes occur, in a
manner at once efficient and ffiscreet; prompt, and yet mod
erate. For these general reasons, and on these grounds, I am decid
effiy m favor of a measure which shaU uphold and support, ffi
behaff of the manufacturers, the law of 1824, and carry its bene
fits and advantages to the fffil extent intended. And though I
am not altogether satisfied with the particffiar form of these en
actments, I am wiffing to take them, in the beUef that they wiU
answer an essentiaUy important and necessary purpose.
It is now my painfffi duty to take notice of another part of
the bffi, wffich I tffink in the highest degree objectionable and
unreasonable; I mean the extiaorffinary augmentation of the
duty on hemp. I cannot well conceive any thing more unwise
or ffi-judged than this appears to me to be. The duty is afready
thirty-five doUars per ton ; and the biU proposes a progressive
mcrease tffi it shaU reach sixty doUars. This wiU be absolutely
oppressive on the shipping interest, the great consumers of the
article. When this duty shall have reached its maximum, it
wffi create an annual charge of at least one hundred thousand
doUars, faffing not on the aggregate of the commercial interest,
but on the ship-owner. It is a very unequal burden. The nav
igation of the countiy has afready a hard stiuggle to sustain
itseff against foreign competition ; and it is singffiar enough, that
this ffiterest, which is afready so severely tried, which pays so
much in duties on hemp, duck, and fron, and which it is now

244 Speeches in Congress
proposed to put under new burdens, is the only interest which is
subject to a dfrect tax by a law of Congress. The tonnage duty
is such a tax. If this bUl should pass in its present form, I shaU
think it my duty, at the earUest suitable opportunity, to bring
forward a biU for the repeal of the tonnage duty. It amounts,
I think, to a hundred and twenty thousand doUars a year ; and
its removal wffi be due in aU justice to the ship-owner, if he is
to be made subject to a new taxation on hemp and fron.
But, objectionable as this tax is, from its severe pressure on a
particular interest, and that at present a depressed interest, there
are stffi further grounds of ffissatisfaction with it. It is not cal
culated to effect the object intended by it. If that object be the
increase of the sale of the dew-rotted American hemp, the in
creased duty will have little tendency to produce that resffit;
because such hemp is so much lower in price than imported
hemp, that it must be afready used for such purposes as it is fit
for. It is said to be seffing for one hundred and twenty dollars
per ton ; whUe the imported hemp commands two hunffied and
seventy doUars. The proposed duty, therefore, cannot materially
assist the sale of American hemp of this quaUty and description.
But the mffin reason given for the increase is the encourage
ment of American water-rotted hemp. Doubtless, this is an
important object ; but I have seen nothing to satisfy me that it
can be obtained by means Uke this. At present there is pro
duced ffi the countiy no considerable quantity of water-rotted
hemp. It is problematical, at best, whether it can be produced
under any encouragement. The hemp may be grown, doubtless,
ffi various parts of the United States, as well as in any countiy
in the world ; but the process of preparing it for use, by water-
rottmg, I believe to be more difficult and laborious than is gen
erally thought among us. I incline to think, that, happily for
us, labor is in too much demand, and commands too high prices,
to aUow this process to be carried on profitably. Other objec
tions, also, beside the amount of labor required, may, perhaps,
be found to exist, in cUmate, and in the effects Uable to be pro
duced on health in warm countiies by the nature of the process.
But whether there be foundation for these suggestions or not,
the fact stffi is, that we do not produce the article. It cannot,
at present, be had at any price. To augment the duty, there
fore, on foreign hemp, can only have the effect of compelling

Second Speech on the Tariff 245
the consumer to pay so much more money into the tieasury,
The proposed increase, then, is doubly objectionable ; ffist, be
cause it creates a charge not to be borne equally by the whole
country, but a new and heavy charge, to be borne exclusively by-
one particffiar interest ; and, second, because that, of the money
raised by this charge, Uttle or none goes to accomplish the pro
fessed object, by ffiffing the hemp-grower; but the whole, or
nearly the whole, falls into the tieasury. Thus the effect wffi
be in no way proportioned to the cause, and the advantage ob
tained by some not at aU equal to the hardship imposed on
others. WhUe one interest wffi suffer much, the other interest
wffi gain Uttle or nothing.
I am qffite Aviffing to make a thorough and fafr experiment,
on the subject of water-rotted hemp ; but I wish at the same
time to do this ffi a manner that shaU not oppress inffividuals,
or particffiar classes. I intend, therefore, to move an amend
ment, wffich wffi consist ffi stiiking out so much of the bffi as
raises the duty on hemp higher than it is at present, and in
ffiserting a clause, making it the duty of the navy department
to purchase, for the public service, American water-rotted hemp,
whenever it can be had of a sffitable quality ; provided it can be
purchased at a rate not exceeffing by more than twenty per
cent, the current price of imported hemp of the same quaUty.
If this amendment should be adopted, the ship-owner would
have no reason to complam, as the price of the article would
not be enhanced to him ; and, at the same time, the hemp-
grower who shaU tiy the experiment wffi be made sure of a cer-
tffin market, and a high price. The existing duty of thfrty-five
doUars per ton wffi stffi remaffi to be borne by the ship-owner.
The twenty per cent, advance on the price of imported hemp
wffi be equal to fffty dollars per ton; the aggregate wffi be
eighty-five doUars ; and this, it must be admitted, is a liberal
and effective provision, and wffi secure every thing which can be
reasonably desfred by the hemp-grower in the most ample man
ner. But ff the bffi shoffid become a law, and go into operation in
its present shape, tffis duty on hemp is likely to defeat its own
object in another way. Very inteffigent persons entertain the
opiffion, that the consequence of this high duty wiU be such,
that American vessels engaged in foreign commerce wffi, to a

246 Speeches in Congress
great extent, supply themselves with cordage abroad. This, of
course, wffi ffiminish the consumption at home, and thus injure
the hemp-grower, and at the same time the manufacturer of
cordage. Again, there may be reason to fear that, as the duty is
not raised on cordage manufactured abroad, such cordage may
¦ be imported in greater or less degree in the place of the un
manufactured article. Whatever view we take, therefore, of
this hemp duty, it appears to me altogether objectionable.
Much has been said of the protection which the navigation
of the countiy has received from the ffiscriminating duties on
tonnage, and the exclusive enjoyment of the coastffig trade. In
my opinion, neither of these measures has materiaUy sustained
the shipping interest of the United States. I do not concur ffi
the sentiments on that point quoted from Dr. Seybert's statistical
work. Dr. Seybert was an inteffigent and worthy man, and
compUed a valuable book ; but he was engaged in pubUc life at
a time when it was more fashionable than it has since become,
to ascribe efficacy to discriminating duties. The shipping inter
est in this countiy has made its way by its own enterprise. By
its own vigorous exertion it spread itself over the seas, and by
the same exertion it stffi holds its place there. It seems iffie to
talk of the benefit and advantage of discriminating duties, when
they operate against us on one side of the ocean quite as much
as they operate for us on the other. To suppose that two na
tions, having intercourse with each other, can secure each to
itself a decided advantage in that intercourse, is Uttie less than
absurffity; and this is the absurffity of ffiscriminating duties.
Stffi less reason is there for the idea, that our own ship-owners
hold the exclusive enjoyment of the coasting tiade offiy by vfr-
tue of the law which prevents foreigners from sharing it. Look
at the rate of freights. Look at the manner in which tffis coast
ing teade is conducted by our own vessels, and the competition
which subsists between them. In a majority of instances, prob
ably, these vessels are owned, in whole or in part, by those who
navigate them. These owners are at home at one end of the
voyage ; and repafrs and suppUes are thus obtaffied in the cheap
est and most economical manner. No foreign vessels woffid be
able to partake in this teade, even by the aid of preferences and
bounties. The sffipping ffiterest of this countiy reqffires only an open

Second Speech on the Tariff 247
field, and a fafr chance. Every thmg else it wffi do for itself. But
it has not a fafr chance whUe it is so severely taxed in what
ever enters into the necessary expense of buUding and equip
ment. In this respect, its rivals have advantages which may in
the end prove to be decisive against us. I enteeat the Senate
to examffie and weigh this subject, and not go on, bUndly, to
unknown consequences. The English sffip-owner is carefuUy
regarded by his government, and aided and succored, whenever
and wherever necessary, by a sharp-sighted poUoy. Both he
and the American ship-owner obtain thefr hemp from Russia,
But observe the ffifference. The duty on hemp in England is
but twenty-one doUars; here, it is proposed to make it sixty,
notwithstanffing its cost here is necessarUy enhanced by an
adffitional freight, proportioned to a voyage longer than that
wffich brffigs it to the EngUsh consumer, by the whole breadth
of the Atlantic.
Sfr, I wish to invoke the Senate's attention, earnestly, to the
subject ; I woffid awaken the regard of the whole government,
more and more, not only on this but on aU occasions, to this
great national ffiterest ; an interest which Ues at the very foun
dation both of our commercial prosperity and our naval acffieve-
ment.

First Speech on Foot's Resolution*

On the 29th of December, 1829, a resolution was moved by Mr.
Foot, one of the Senators from Connecticut, which, after the addition of
the last clause by amendment, stood as follows : —
" Resolved, That the Committee on Public Lands be instructed to in
quire and report the quantity of public lands remaining unsold within
each State and Territory. And whether it be expedient to Umit for a
certain period the sales of the public lands to such lands only as have
heretofore been offered for sale and are now subject to entry at the
minimum price. And, also, whether the office of Surveyor-General,
and some of the land offices, may not be abolished without detriment to
the public interest ; or whether it be expedient to adopt measures to
hasten the sales and extend more rapidly the surveys of the public
lands." On the 18th of January, Mr. Benton of Missouri addressed the Senate
on the subject of this resolution. On the 19th, Mr. Hayne of South
Carolina spoke at considerable length. After he had concluded, Mr.
Webster rose to reply, but gave way on motion of Mr. Benton for an
adjournment. On the 20th, Mr. Webster spoke as follows : —
Nothing has been farther from my intention than to take any
part in the ffiscussion of this resolution. It proposes only an in
qufry on a subject of much importance, and one in regard to
which it might strike the mind of the mover and of other gentle
men that inqufry and ffivestigation woffid be useful. Although
I am one of those who do not perceive any particular utUity in
mstituting the ffiqffiry, I have, nevertheless, not seen that harm
woffid be likely to result from adopting the resolution. Indeed,
it gives no new powers, and harffiy imposes any new duty on
* Delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 20th of January, 1830.

Thomas H. Bento

n

From a Photograph from life, in the possession of
Mr. Robert Coster, New York city

First Speech on Foot's Resolution 249
the committee. AU that the resolution proposes should be done,
the committee is quite competent, without the resolution, to do
by virtue of its orffinary powers. But, Sfr, although I have felt
quite inffifferent about the passffig of the resolution, yet opinions
were expressed yesterday on the general subject of the public
lands, and on some other subjects, by the gentleman from
South CaroUna, so widely ffifferent from my own, that I am not
willing to let the occasion pass without some reply. If I deemed
the resolution as originaUy proposed harffiy necessary, stffi less do
I tffink it either necessary or expeffient to adopt it, since a sec
ond branch has been added to it to-day. By this second branch,
the committee is to be instructed to inquire whether it be expedi
ent to adopt measures to hasten the sales, and extend more rap
iffiy the surveys of the pubUc lands.
Now it appears, Mr. President, that, in forty years, we have
sold no more than about twenty mUUons of acres of pubUc
lands. The annual sales do not now exceed, and never have
exceeded, one mUUon of acres. A mffiion a year is, accorffing
to our experience, as much as the increase of popffiation can
bring ffito settiement. And it appears, also, that we have, at
this moment, surveyed and in the market, ready for sale, two
hunffied and ten miffions of acres, or thereabouts. AU this vast
mass, at tffis moment, lies on our hands for mere want of pur
chasers. Can any man, looking to the real interests of the coun
tiy and the people, seriously think of inqufring whether we ought
not to hasten the pubUc surveys stffi faster, and to bring, stffi
more and more rapiffiy, other vast quantities into the market ?
The truth is, that, rapiffiy as popffiation has increased, the sur
veys have, nevertheless, outrun our wants. There are more
lands than purchasers. They are now sold at low prices, and
taken up as fast as the increase of people furnishes hands to
take them up. It is obvious, that no artfficial regffiation, no
forcing of sales, no giving away of the lands even, can produce
any great and sudden augmentation of population. The ratio
of mcrease, though great, has its bounds. Hands for labor are
mffitipUed only at a certain rate. The lands cannot be settled
but by settlers, nor faster than settlers can be found. A system,
if now adopted, of forcing sales, at whatever prices, may have
the effect of throwing large quantities into the hands of individ
uals, who would in this way, in time, become themselves com-

250 Speeches in Congress
petitors with the government in the sale of land. My own
opinion has uniformly been, that the pubUc lands shoffid be
offered freely, and at low prices ; so as to encourage settlement
and cffitivation as rapiffiy as the increasffig population of the
country is competent to extend settlement and cultivation. Ev
ery actual settler shoffid be able to buy good land, at a cheap
rate ; but, on the other hand, specffiation by inffividuals on a large
scale shoffid not be encouraged, nor shoffid the value of aU
lands, sold and unsold, be reduced to nothing, by throwing new
and vast quantities into the market at prices merely nominal.
I now proceed, Sfr, to some of the opinions expressed by the
gentleman from South CaroUna. Two or three topics were
touched by him, in regard to which he expressed sentiments in
wffich I do not at aU concur.
In the first place. Sir, the honorable gentleman spoke of the
whole course and poUcy of the government towards those who
have purchased and settled the pubUc lands, and seemed to
think this poUcy wrong. He held it to have been, from the ffrst,
hard and rigorous ; he was of opinion, that the Uffited States
had acted towards those who had subdued the Western wUder-
ness in the spfrit of a step-mother ; that the public domain had
been improperly regarded as a source of revenue ; and that we
had rigiffiy compeUed payment for that which ought to have been
given away. He said we ought to have imitated the example
of other governments, which had acted on a much more liberal
system than ours, ffi planting colonies. He dwelt, particffiarly,
upon the settlement of America by colonies from Europe ; and
reminded us, that thefr governments had not exacted from those
colonies payment for the soU. In reference to them, he said, it
had been thought that the conquest of the wUderness was itseff
an equivalent for the soil, and he lamented that we had not fol
lowed that example, and pursued the same Uberal course towards
our own emigrants to the West.
Now, Sfr, I deny, altogether, that there has been any thing
harsh or severe in the policy of the government towards the new
States of the West. On the contrary, I maintain that it has
uniformly pursued towards those States a Uberal and enUght
ened system, such as its own duty aUowed and requfred, and
such as thefr interest and welfare demanded. The government

First Speech on Foot's Resolution 251
has been no step-mother to the new States. She has not been
careless of thefr interests, nor deaf to thefr requests ; but from
the ffrst moment when the territories which now form those
States were ceded to the Union, down to the time in which I am
now speaking, it has been the invariable object of the govern
ment, to dispose of the soU according to the tiue spfrit of the
obUgation under which it received it ; to hasten its settlement
and cffitivation, as far and as fast as practicable ; and to rear the
new communities ffito new and independent States, at the ear
Uest moment of thefr being able, by thefr numbers, to form a
regffiar government.
I do not admit, Sfr, that the analogy to which the gentleman
refers us is just, or that the cases are at aU simUar. There is
no resemblance between the cases, upon which a statesman can
found an argument. The original North American coloffists
either fled from Europe, Uke our New England ancestors, to
avoid persecution, or came hither at thefr own charges, and often
at the rffin of thefr fortunes, as private adventurers. GeneraUy
spealdng, they derived neither succor nor protection from their
governments at home. Wide, indeed, is the difference between
those cases and ours. From the very origin of the government,
these Western lands, and the just protection of those who had
settled or shoffid settle on them, have been the leaffing objects ffi
our poUcy, and have led to expenffitures, both of blood and teeas-
ure, not inconsiderable ; not, indeed, exceedmg the importance
of the object, and not yielded grudgingly ; but yet entitled
to be regarded as great, though necessary sacrifices, made for
high, proper ends. The Inffian title has been extingffished at
the expense of many miffions. Is that nothffig ? There is stffi
a much more material consideration. These coloffists, ff we
are to caU them so, in passing the Alleghanies, ffid not pass be
yond the care and protection of thefr own government. Where-
ever they went, the pubUc arm was stffi stietched over them.
A parental government at home was stffi ever mindfffi of thefr
conffition and thefr wants, and nothing was spared which a
just sense of thefr necessities reqffired. Is it forgotten that it
was one of the most arduous duties of the government, in its
earUest years, to defend the frontiers against the Northwestern
Inffians ? Are the sufferings and misfortunes under Harmar and
St. Clafr not worthy to be remembered ? Do the occurrences

252 Speeches in Congress
connected with these miUtary efforts show an unfeeUng neglect
of Western interests ? And here, Sfr, what becomes of the gen
tleman's anffiogy ? What EngUsh armies accompaffied our an
cestors to clear the forests of a barbarous foe ? What tieasmres
of the exchequer were expended in buying up the original title
to the soU? What governmental arm held its aegis over our
fathers' heads, as they pioneered thefr way in the wUderness ?
Sfr, it was not till General Wayne's victory, in 1794, that it
could be said we had conquered the savages. It was not tffi
that period that the government coffid have considered itself as
having estabUshed an entire abffity to protect those who should
undertake the conquest of the wilderness.
And here, Sfr, at the epoch of 1794, let us pause and survey
the scene, as it actuaUy existed thirty-five years ago. Let us
look back and behold it. Over aU that is now Offio there then
stietched one vast wUderness, unbroken except by two smaU
spots of civffized cffiture, the one at Marietta and the other at
Cincinnati. At these little openings, hardly each a pin's point
upon the map, the arm of the frontier-man had leveUed the forest
and let in the sun. These Uttle patches of earth, themselves
almost overshadowed by the overhanging boughs of that wUder
ness which had stood and perpetuated itself, from century to
century, ever since the creation, were aU that had then been ren
dered verdant by the hand of man. In an extent of hundreds
and thousands of square miles, no other surface of smffing
green attested the presence of civffization. The hunter's path
crossed mighty rivers, flowffig in solitary grandeur, whose sources
lay in remote and unknown regions of the wUderness. It stiuck
upon the north on a vast inland sea, over wffich the wintry
tempests raged as on the ocean ; aU around was bare creation.
It was fresh, untouched, unbounded, magffificent wilderness.
And, Sfr, what is it now ? Is it imagination only, or can it
possibly be fact, that presents such a change as surprises and
astonishes us when we turn our eyes to what Ohio now is ? Is
it reaUty, or a dream, that, in so short a period even as thirty -five
years, there has sprung up, on the same surface, an independent
State with a miffion of people ? A mffiion of inhabitants ! an
amount of population greater than that of aU the cantons of
Switzerland ; equal to one thfrd of all the people of the United
States when they undertook to accompUsh thefr independence.

First Speech on Foot's Resolution 253
This new member of the republic has afready left far behind her
a majority of the old States. She is now by the side of Vir
ginia and Pennsylvania ; and in point of numbers wiU shortly
admit no equal but New York herseff. If, Sfr, we may judge
of measures by their results, what lessons do these facts read us
upon the poUcy of the government ? What inferences do they
authorize upon the general question of kindness or unkindness ?
What convictions do they enforce as to the wisdom and abiUty,
on the one hand, or the foUy and incapacity, on the other, of our
general admffiistiation of Western affafrs ? Sfr, does it not re
quire some portion of self-respect in us to imagine, that, if our
Ught had shone on the path of government, if our wisdom coffid
have been consffited in its measures, a more rapid advance to
stiength and prosperity would have been experienced ? For my
own part, whUe I am stiuck with wonder at the success, I also
look with admiration at the wisdom and foresight which origi
naUy arranged and prescribed the system for the settlement of
the pubUc domain. Its operation has been, without a moment's
interruption, to push the settlement of the Western countiy to
the extent of our utmost means.
But, Sfr, to return to the remarks of the honorable member
from South CaroUna. He says that Congress has sold these
lands and put the money into the tieasury, whUe other govern
ments, acting in a more Uberal spirit, gave away their lands ;
and that we ought also to have given ours away. I shaU not
stop to state an account between our revenues derived from land,
and our expenffitures ffi Inffian tieaties and Indian wars. But
I must refer the honorable gentleman to the origin of our own
title to the soU of these territories, and remind him that we re
ceived them on conditions and under tiusts which would have
been violated by giving the soil away. For compliance with
those conffitions, and the just execution of those tiusts, the pubUc
faith was solemnly pledged. The public lands of the United
States have been derived from four principal sources. Ffrst,
cessions made to the United States by individual States, on
the recommendation or request of the old Congress ; seconffiy,
the compact with Georgia, in 1802 ; thfrffiy, the purchase of
Loffisiana, ffi 1803 ; fourthly, the purchase of Florida, in 1819.
Of the first class, the most important was the cession by Vfr
ginia of aU her right and titie, as weU of soil as jurisffiction, to aU

254 Speeches in Congress
the territory witffin the Umits of her charter lying to the north
west of the Ohio River. It may not be iU-timed to recur to the
causes and occasions of this and the other simUar grants.
When the war of the Revolution broke out, a great difference
existed in ffifferent States in the proportion between people and
territory. The Northern and Eastern States, with very small
surfaces, contained comparatively a thick population, and there
was generaUy within thefr limits no great quantity of waste
lands belonging to the government, or the crown of England.
On the contiary, there were in the Southern States, in Virginia
and in Georgia, for example, extensive pubUc domains, wholly
unsettled, and belonging to the crown. As these possessions
would necessarily faU from the crown in the event of a prosper
ous issue of the war, it was insisted that they ought to devolve
on the United States, for the good of the whole. The war, it
was argued, was undertaken and carried on at the common ex
pense of aU the colonies ; its benefits, if successfffi, ought also to
be common ; and the property of the common enemy, when
vanquished, ought to be regarded as the general acquisition of
all. WhUe yet the war was raging, it was contended that Con
gress ought to have the power to ffispose of vacant and un
patented lands, commonly called crown lands, for defraying the
expenses of the war, and for other public and general purposes.
" Reason and justice," said the Assembly of New Jersey, in
1778, " must decide that the property which existed in the
crown of Great Britain previous to the present Revolution
ought now to belong to the Congress, in tiust for the use and
benefit of the United States. They have fought and bled for it,
in proportion to thefr respective abiUties, and therefcire the re
ward ought not to be predUectionaUy ffistributed. ShaU such
States as are shut out by situation from avaiUng themselves of
the least advantage from tffis quarter be left to sink under an
enormous debt, whilst others are enabled in a short period to re
place aU thefr expenffitures from the hard earnings of the whole
confederacy ? "
Moved by considerations and appeals of this kind. Congress
took up the subject, and in September, 1780, recommended to
the several States in the Union having claims to Western terri
tory, to make Uberal cessions of a portion thereof to the Uffited
States; and on the 10th of October, 1780, Congress resolved.

First Speech on Foot's Resolution 255
that any lands so ceded, in pursuance of their preceding recom
mendation, should be disposed of for the common benefit of the
United States ; shoffid be settled and formed into ffistinct repub
lican States, to become members of the Federal Union, with
the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence as
the other States ; and that the lands shoffid be granted, or set
tled, at such times, and under such regffiations, as should be
agreed on by Congress. Again, in September, 1783, Congress
passed another resolution, setting forth the conditions on which
cessions from States should be received ; and in October follow
ing, Vfrginia made her cession, reciting the resolution, or act, of
September preceffing, and then tiansferring to the United States
her titie to her Northwestern territory, upon the express condi
tion that the lands so ceded should be considered as a common
fund for the use and benefit of such of the United States as had
become or shoffid become members of the confederation, Vir
ginia inclusive, and shoffid be faithfuUy and bona fide ffisposed
of for that purpose, and for no other use or purpose whatever.
The grants from other States were on simUar conditions. Mas
sachusetts and Connecticut both had claims to Western lands,
and both reUnquished them to the United States in the same
manner. These grants were aU made on three substantial con
ditions or trusts. Ffrst, that the ceded territories shoffid be
formed into States, and admitted in due time into the Union,
with aU the rights belonging to other States ; secondly, that the
lands shoffid form a common fund, to be ffisposed of for the gen
eral benefit of aU the States ; and thfrdly, that they shoffid be
sold and settled, at such time and in such manner as Congress
shoffid dfrect.
Now, Sfr, it is plain that Congress never has been, and is not
now, at Uberty to ffisregard these solemn conditions. For the
fulfilment of aU these tiusts, the public faith was, and is, fffily
pledged. How, then, would it have been possible for Congress,
if it had been so ffisposed, to give away these pubUc lands?
How coffid it have foUowed the example of other govern
ments, ff there had been such, and considered the conquest of
the wUderness an eqffivalent compensation for the soil ? The
States had looked to this territory, perhaps too sangffinely, as a
fund out of which means were to come to defray the expenses
of the war. It had been received as a fund, as a fund Congress

256 Speeches in Congre

ss
had bound itself to apply it. To have given it away, woffid
have defeated aU the objects which Congress and particffiar
States had had in view in askffig and obtaffiing the cession,
and would have plainly violated the conditions which the ceffing
States attached to thefr own grants.
The gentleman admits, that the lands cannot be given away
untU the national debt is paid ; because to a part of that debt
they stand pledged. But this is not the original pledge. There
is, so to speak, an earlier mortgage. Before the debt was funded,
at the moment of the cession of the lands, and by the very terms
of that cession, every State in the Union obtained an interest in
them, as in a common fund. Congress has uniformly adhered to
this conffition. It has proceeded to sell the lands, and to reaUze
as much from them as was compatible with the other trusts
created by the same deeds of cession. One of these deeds of
trust, as I have afready said, was, that the lands shoffid be sold
and settled, at such time and in such manner as Congress
shaU dfrect. The government has always felt itself bound, in
this respect, to exercise its own best judgment, and not to
tiansfer the ffiscretion to others. It has not felt itself at liberty
to dispose of the soU, therefore, in large masses to individuals,
thus leaving to them the time and manner of settlement. It
had stipulated to use its own judgment. If, for instance, ffi
order to rid itself of the tiouble of forming a system for the sale
of those lands, and going into detaU, it had sold the whole of
what is now Ohio, in one mass, to individuals or companies, it
woffid clearly have departed from its just obUgations. And who
can now teU, or conjecture, how great would have been the evU
of such a course ? Who can say what mischiefs woffid have
ensued, ff Congress had thrown these territories into the hands
of private specffiation ? Or who, on the other hand, can now
foresee what the event woffid be, shoffid the government depart
from the same wise course hereafter, and, not content with such
gradual absorption of the pubUc lands as the natural growth of
our popffiation may accompUsh, shoffid force great portions of
them, at nominal or very low prices, into private hands, to be
sold and settled as and when such holders might think woffid be
most for thefr own interests ?
Hitherto, Sfr, I maintain. Congress has acted wisely, and done
its duty on tffis subject. I hope it wffi continue to do it. De-

First Speech on Foot's Resolution 257
parting from the original idea, so soon as it was found practica
ble and convenient, of seffing by townships. Congress has ffis
posed of the soU in smaUer and stiU smaller portions, tffi at
length it seUs in parcels of no more than eighty acres ; thus put
ting it into the power of every man in the countiy, however
poor, but who has health and stiength, to become a freeholder
ff he desires, not of barren acres, but of rich and fertUe soU.
The government has performed effi the conffitions of the grant.
WhUe it has regarded the pubUc lands as a common fund, and
has sought to make what reasonably could be made of them, as
a source of revenue, it has also applied its best wisdom to seU
and settle them, as fast and as happUy as possible ; and when
soever numbers woffid warrant it, each territory has been suc
cessively admitted into the Union, with aU the rights of an inde
pendent State.
Is there then, Sfr, I ask, any ground for a weU-founded charge
of hard dealing? for any just accusation of negUgence, inffiffer-
ence, or parsimony, wffich is capable of being sustained against
the government of the countiy in its conduct towards the new
States ? I thffik there is not.
But there was another observation of the honorable member,
wffich, I confess, ffid not a Uttie surprise me. As a reason for
wisffing to get rid of the pubUc lands as soon as we coffid, and
as we imght, the honorable gentieman said he wanted no per
manent sources of fficome. He wished to see the time when
the governmeiiLshould not possess a sffiUing of permanent reve
nue. If he coffid speak a magical word, and by that word con
vert the whole Capitol into gold, the word should not be spoken.
The admiffistiation of a fixed revenue, he said, only consolidates
the government and corrupts the people ! Sfr, I confess I heard
thesd .sentiments^utteredjao this floor not without deep regret
and pain.
I am aware that these and simUar opinions are espoused by
certaffi persons out of the Capitol and out of this government ;
but I ffid not expect so soon to find them here. Consolidation !
— that perpetual cry both of terror and delusion, — ConsoUda
tion I Sfr, when gentlemen speak of the effects of a common
fund, belongmg to aU the States, as having a tendency to con
soUdation, what do they mean ? Do they mean, or can they
mean, any tffing more than that the union of the States wffi be
VOL. V. — 17

258 Speeches in Congress
stiengthened by whatever continues or furffishes inducements to
the people of the States to hold together ? If they mean merely
this, then, no doubt, the pubUc lands, as weU as every thing else
in which we have a common interest, tend to consolidation;
and to this species of consoUdation every teue American ought
to be attached ; it is neither more nor less than steengthening
the Union itseff. This is the sense in which the framers of the
Constitution use the word consolidation, and in this sense I
adopt and cherish it. They teU us, in the letter submitting the
Constitution to the consideration of the country, that, " In aU
our deUberations on this subject, we kept steadUy in our view
that which appears to us the greatest interest of every tiue
American, the consoUdation of our Union, in which is involved
our prosperity, feUcity, safety, perhaps our national existence.
This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on
our minds, led each State in the Convention to be less rigid on
points of inferior magnitude than might have been otherwise
expected." Tffis, Sfr, is General Washffigton's consoUdation. This is
the teue, constitutional consolidation. I wish to see no new
powers ffiawn to the general government ; but I confess I re
joice m whatever tends to stiengthen the bond that unites us,
and encourages the hope that our Union may be perpetual.
And therefore I cannot but feel regret at the expression of such
opinions as the gentleman has avowed, because I think thefr
obvious tendency is to weaken the bond of our connection. 1
know that there are some persons in the part of the country
from which the honorable member comes, who habitually speak
of the Union in terms of inffifference, or even of disparage
ment. The honorable member himseff is not, I tiust, and can
never be, one of these. They signfficantly declare, that it is
time to calcffiate the value of the Union ; and their aim seems
to be to enumerate, and to~magiiify7anr the evils, real and imagi
nary, which the government under the Union produces.
The tendency of aU these ideas and sentiments is obviously
to bring.. the_Uffion into ffiscussion, as a mere question of present
and temporary expedieney,; nothing more than a mere matter
of profit and loss. The Union is to be preserved, whUe it sffits
local and temporary purposes to preserve it; and to be sun
dered whenever it shall be found to thwart such purposes.

First Speech on Foot's Resolution 259
Union, of itself, is considered by the ffisciples of this school as
harffiy a good. It is offiy regarded as a possible means of good ;
or, on the other hand, as a possible means of evU. They cherish
no deep and fixed regard for it, flowing from a thorough convic
tion of its absolute and vital necessity to our welfare. Sfr, I
deprecate and deplore this tone of thinking and acting. I deem
far otherwise of the union of the States ; and so did the framers
of the Constitution themselves. What they said, I believe ;
fffily and sincerely believe, that the union of the States is essen
tial to the prosperity and safety of the States. I smi a unionist,
and, in this sense, a national repubUcan. I would stiengthen
the ties that hold us together. Far, indeed, in my wishes, very
far ffistant be the day, when our associated and fraternal stiipes
shaU be severed asunder, and when that happy consteUation
under which we have risen to so much renown shaU be broken
up, and sink, star after star, into obscurity and night !
Among other thffigs, the honorable member spoke of the pub
Uc debt. To that he holds the pubUc lands pledged, and has
expressed his usual earnestness for its total ffischarge. Sfr, I
have ffiways voted for every measure for reducing the debt, since
I have been in Congress. I wished it paid because it is a debt,
and, so far, is a charge upon the industiy of the country and the
finances of the government. But, Sfr, I have observed, that,
whenever the subject of the pubUc debt is introduced into the
Senate, a morbid sort of fervor is manifested in regard to it,
wffich I have been sometimes at a loss to understand. The
debt is not now large, and is ffi a course of most rapid reduction.
A few years wffi see it extffigffished. I am not entirely able to
persuade myseff that it is not certain supposed incidental ten
dencies and effects of this debt, rather than its pressure and
charge as a debt, that cause so much anxiety to get rid of it.
Possibly it may be regarded as in some degree a tie, holding the
different parts of the country together, by considerations of mu
tual ffiterest. If tffis be one of its effects, the effect itself is, in
my opffiion, not to be lamented. Let me not be misunderstood.
I woffid not continue the debt for the sake of any coUateral or
consequential advantage, such as I have mentioned. I only
mean to say, that that consequence itseff is not one that I re
gret ; at the same tune, that, ff there are others who would or
who do regret it, I differ from them.

26o Speeches in Congress
As I have afready remarked, Sfr, it was one among the rea
sons assigned by the honorable member for his wish to be rid of
the public lands altogether, that the pubUc ffisposition of them,
and the revenues derived from them, tend to corrupt the people.
This, Sfr, I confess, passes my comprehension. These lands
are sold at pubUe auction, or taken up at fixed prices, to form
farms and freeholds. Whom does this corrupt ? Accorffing to
the system of sales, a fixed proportion is everywhere reserved,
as a fund for education. Does education corrupt? Is the
schoolmaster a corrupter of youth? the speffing-book, does it
break down the morals of the rising generation ? and the Holy
Scriptures, are they fountains of corruption ? Or if, in the ex
ercise of a provident liberaUty, in regard to its own property as
a great landed proprietor, and to high purposes of utility towards
others, the government gives portions of these lands to the mak-
ffig of a canal, or the opening of a road, in the countiy where
the lands themselves are situated, what alarming and over
whelming corruption foUows from aU this ? Can there be noth
ing pure ffi government except the exercise of mere contiol?
Can nothmg be done without corruption, but the impositions
of penalty and restiaint? Whatever is positively beneficent,
whatever is actively good, whatever spreads abroad benefits and
blessings which aU can see and aU can feel, whatever opens chan
nels of intercourse, augments population, enhances the value of
property, and ffiffuses knowledge, — must aU this be rejected and
reprobated as a dangerous and obnoxious policy, hurrying us to
the double rffin of a government, turned into despotism by the
mere exercise of acts of beneficence, and of a people, corrupted,
beyond hope of rescue, by the improvement of thefr conffition ?
The gentleman proceeded, Sfr, to draw a frightfffi picture of
the future. He spoke of the centuries that must elapse before
aU the lands coffid be sold, and the great hardsffips that the
States must suffer whUe the United States reserve to themselves,
witffin thefr Umits, such large portions of soil, not liable to taxa
tion. Sfr, this is aU, or mostly, imagination. If these lands were
leasehold property, ff they were held by the United States on
rent, there woffid be much in the idea. But they are wild lands,
held offiy tffi they can be sold ; reserved no longer than tffi some
body wffi take them up, at low prices. As to thefr not beffig
taxed, I woffid ask whether the States themselves, ff they owned

First Speech on Foot's Resolution 261
them, woffid tax them before sale ? Sir, if in any case any State
can show that the policy of the United States retards her settle
ment, or prevents her from cffitivating the lands within her Um
its, she shaU have my vote to alter that policy. But I look upon
the pubUc lands as a public fund, and that we are no more au
thorized to give them away gratuitously than to give away gra-
tffitously the money in the tieasury. I am quite aware, that
the sums ffiawn annuaUy from the Western States make a
heavy dram upon them ; but that is unavoidable. For that very
reason, among others, I have always been inclined to pursue
towards them a kmd and most Uberal poUcy ; but I am not at
Uberty to forget, at the same time, what is due to other States,
and to the solemn engagements under which the government
rests. I come now, Mr. President, to that part of the gentleman's
speech which has been the main occasion of my addressing the
Senate. The East ! th^_obno^ious, the rebuked, the always re-
proachedjlasi-' — "we have come in. Sir, on this debate, for even
more than a common share of accusation and attack. If the
honorable member from South CaroUna was not our original
accuser, he has yet recited the indictment against us with the
afr and tone of a pubUc prosecutor. He has summoned us to
plead on our arraignment ; and he teUs us we are charged with
the crime of a narrow and seffish poUcy ; of endeavoring to re
stiffin emigration to the West, and, having that object in view,
of mffintaming a steady opposition to Western measures and
Western interests. And the cause of aU this narrow and selfish
policy, the gentleman finds in the tariff; I think he caUed it the
accursed poUcy of the tariff. This poUcy, the gentleman teUs us,
requfres mffititudes of dependent laborers, a popffiation of pau
pers, and that it is to secure these at home that the East op
poses whatever may induce to Western emigration. Sfr, I rise
to defend the East. I rise to repel, both the charge itself, and
the cause assigned for it 1 deny that the East has, at any time,
shown an UUberal poUcy towards the West. I pronounce the
whole accusation to be without the least foundation in any
facts, existing either now or at any previous time. I deny it in
the general, and I deny each and aU its particffiars. I deny the
sum total, and I deny the detaU. I deny that the East has ever
manifested hostffity to the West, and I deny that she has adopt-

262 Speeches in Congress
ed any poUcy that woffid naturaUy have led her in such a
course. But the tariff! the tariff! ! Sfr, I beg to say in regard to the
East, that the original policy of the tariff is not hers, whether it
be wise or unwise. New^ England is not its author. If gentle
men wiU refer to the tariff of 1816, they wUl find that tffis was
not carried by New England votes. It was teuly more a_South-
ern than an Eastern measm-e. And what votes -carried the tar
iff of 1824 ? Certainly not those of New England. It is known
to have been made matter of reproach, especially against Mas
sachusetts, that she would not aid the tariff of 1824 ; and a self
ish motive was imputed to her for that, also. In point of fact,
it is teue that she ffid, indeed, oppose the tariff of 1824. There
were more votes in favor of that law in the House of Represen
tatives, not only in each of a majority of the Western States,
but even in Vfrginia herself, than in Massachusetts. It was
UteraUy forced upon New England ; and this shows how ground
less, how void of all probabUity, must be any charge of hos
tUity to the growth of the Western States, as naturally flow
ing from a cherished poUcy of her own.
But leaving aU conjectures about causes and motives, I go at
once to the fact, and I meet it with one broad, comprehensive,
and emphatic negative. I deny that, in any part of her history,
at any period of the government, or in relation to any leaffing
subject. New England has manifested sucn hostility as is charged
upon her. On the contiary, I maintain that, from the day of the
cession of the territories by the States to Congress, no portion
of the countiy has acted either with more liberality or more in
telligence, on the subject of the pubUc lands in the new States,
than New England.
This statement, though strong, is no steonger than the steict-
est tenths wffi warrant. Let us look at the historical facts. So
soon as the cessions were obtained, it became necessary to make
provision for the government and disposition of the territory.
The country was to be governed. This, for the present, it was
obvious, must be by some territorial system of administiation.
But the soil, also, was to be granted and settled. Those im
mense regions, large enough almost for an empire, were to be
appropriated to private ownership. How was this best to be
done? What system for sale and disposition should be adopt-

First Speech on Foot's Resolution 263
ed ? Two modes for conductffig the sales presented themselves ;
the one a Southern, and the other a Northern mode. It would
be teffious, Sfr, here, to run out these different systems into aU
thefr distinctions, and to contiast the opposite resffits. That
which was adopted was the Northern system, and is that which
we now see in successful operation ffi aU the new States. That
which was rejected was the system of warrants, surveys, entry,
and location ; such as prevaUs south of the Ohio. It is not
necessary to extend these remarks into invidious compari
sons. Tffis last system is that which, as has been expressively
said, has shingled over the country to which it was appUed
with so many conflicting tities and claims. Every body ac
quamted with the subject knows how easUy it leads to spec
ulation and litigation, — two great calamities in a new country.
From the system actuaUy estabUshed, these evils are banished.
Now, Sfr-, in effectmg this great measure, the ffist important
measure on the whole subject. New England acted with vigor
and effect, and the latest posterity of those who settled the region
northwest of the Offio wUl have reason to remember, with grat
itude, her pati-iotism and her wisdom. The system adopted was
her own system. She knew, for she had tiled and proved its
value. It was the old-fashioned way of surveying lands before
the issuing of any title papers, and then of inserting accurate
and precise descriptions in the patents or grants, and proceeding
with regffiar reference to metes and bounds. This gives to origi
nal titles, derived from government, a certain and fixed char
acter; it cuts up Utigation by the roots, and the settler com
mences his labor with the assurance that he has a clear title. It
is easy to perceive, but not easy to measure, the importance of
tffis ffi a new country. New England gave this system to the
West ; and whUe it remaffis, there wffi be spread over aU the
West one monument of her intelligence in matters of govern
ment, and her practical good sense.
At the foundation of the constitution of these new North
western States Ues the celebrated Ordinance of 1787. We are
accustomed, Sfr, to praise the lawgivers of antiquity ; we help to
perpetuate the fame of Solon and Lycurgus ; but I doubt wheth
er one single law of any lawgiver, ancient or modern, has pro
duced effects of more ffistinct, marked, and lasting character than
the Orffinance of 1787. That instiument was drawn by Nathan

264 Speeches in Congress
Dane, then and now a citizen of Massachusetts. It was adopt
ed, as I think I have understood, ^vithout the sUghtest altera
tion; and certaiffiy it has happened to few men to be the
authors of a political measure of more large and enduring con
sequence. It fixed for ever the character of the popffiation in
the vast regions northwest of the Ohio, by excluffing from them
mvoluntary servitude. It impressed on the soU itself, whUe it
was yet a wUderness, an incapacity to sustaffi any other than
freemen. It laid the interdict against personal servitude, in
original compact, not only deeper than aU local law, but deeper,
also, than aU local constitutions. Under the cfrcumstances then
existing, I look upon this original and seasonable provision as a
real good attained. We see its consequences at this moment,
and we shaU never cease to see them, perhaps, whUe the Ohio
shall flow. It was a great and salutary measure of prevention.
Sir, I should fear the rebuke of no intelUgent gentleman of
Kentucky, were I to ask whether, if such an orffinance could
have been appUed to his own State, while it yet was a wUder
ness, and before Boone had passed the gap of the AUeghaffies,
he does not suppose it woffid have contributed to the ffitimate
greatness of that commonwealth ? It is, at any rate, not to be
doubted, that, where it ffid apply, it has produced an effect not
easily to be described or measured, in the growth of the States,
and the extent and increase of thefr popffiation. Now, Sfr, as I
have stated, tffis great measure was brought forward in 1787, by
the North. It was sustained, indeed, by the votes of the South,
but it must have faUed without the corffial support of the
New England States. If New England had been governed by
the narrow and seffish views now ascribed to her, this very
measure was, of aU others, the best calcffiated to thwart her
purposes. It was, of all things, the very means of rendering
certain a vast emigration from her own popffiation to the West.
She looked to that consequence only to ffisregard it. She
deemed the regulation a most usefffi one to the States that
woffid spring up on the territory, and advantageous to the coun
try at large. She adhered to the principle of it perseveringly,
year after year, untU it was finaUy accomplished.
Leavffig, then, Mr. President, these two great and leadffig
measures, and coming down to our own times, what is there m
the history of recent measures of government that exposes New

First Speech on Foot's Resolution 265
England to this accusation of hostUity to Western interests ? T
assert, bolffiy, that, ffi aU measures conducive to the welfare of
the West, since my acquaintance here, no part of the countiy
has manifested a more liberal poUcy. I beg to say, Sfr, that I do
not state tffis with a view of claiming for her any special regard
on that account. Not at aU. She does not place her support
of measures on the ground of favor conferred. Far otherwise.
What she has done has been consonant to her view of the gen
eral good, and therefore she has done it. She has sought to
make no gffin of it ; on the contiary, inffividuals may have felt,
undoubteffiy, some natural regret at findffig the relative impor
tance of thefr own States diminished by the growth of the
West. But New England has regarded that as the natural
course of tffings, and has never complained of it. Let me see,
Sfr, any one measure favorable to the West, which has been
opposed by New England, smce the government bestowed its at
tention on these Western improvements. Select what you wffi,
ff it be a measure of acknowledged utffity, I answer for it, it
wffi be found that not only were New England votes for it, but
that New England votes carried it. Wffi you take the Cumber
land Road ? who has made that ? Wffi you take the Portland
Canal ? whose support carried that bffi ? Sfr, at what period
beyond the Greek kalends coffid these measures, or measures
like these, have been accompUshed, had they depended on the
votes of Southern gentiemen? Why, Sfr, we know that we
must have waited tffi the constitutional notions of those gentle
men had undergone an entfre change. GeneraUy speaking, they
have done notffing, and can do nothing. AU that has been
effected has been done by the votes of reproached New Eng
land. I undertake to say, Sfr, that if you look to the votes on
any one of these measures, and strike out from the Ust of ayes
the names of New England members, it wffi be found that, in
every case, the South would then have voted down the West,
and the measure would have faUed. I do not beUeve any one
instance can be found where this is not strictly teue. I do not
beUeve that one doUar has been expended for these purposes be
yond the mountains, which coffid have been obtained without
corffial cooperation and support from New England.
Sfr, I put the question to the West itseff. Let gentiemen
who have sat here ten years come forth and declare, by what

266 Speeches in Congress
aids, and by whose votes, they have succeeded, in measures
deemed of essential importance to their part of the countiy.
To all men of sense and candor, in or out of Congress, who
have any knowledge upon the subject. New England may ap
peal for refutation of the reproach it is now attempted to cast
upon her ffi this respect.
I take the Uberty to repeat, that I make no claim on behaff of
New England, or on account of that wffich I have now stated.
She does not profess to have acted out of favor; for it' woffid
not become her so to have acted. She asks for no especial
thanks ; but, in the consciousness of having done her duty in
these things uprightly and honestly, and mth a fafr and Uberal
spfrit, be assured she wffi repel, whenever she thinks the occa
sion calls for it, an unjust and grounffiess imputation of partial
ity and selfishness.
The gentleman aUuded to a report of the late Secretary of the
Treasury, wffich, accorffing to his reading or constiuction of it,
recommended what he calls the tariff poUcy, or a branch of that
policy ; that is, the restiaining of emigration to the West, for
the purpose of keeping hands at home to carry on manufactures.
I think, Sfr, that the gentleman misapprehended the meaning
of the Secretary, in the interpretation given to his remarks. I
understand him offiy as saying, that, since the low price of lands
at the West acts as a constant and standing bounty to agricffi-
tm-e, it is, on that account, the more reasonable to provide en
couragement for manufactures. But, Sir, even ff the Secretary's
observation were to be understood as the gentleman understands
it, it woffid not be a sentiment borrowed from any New Eng
land source. Whether it be right or wrong, it does not origi
nate in that quarter.
In the course of these remarks, Mr. President, I have spoken
of the supposed desire, on the part of the Atlantic States, to
check, or at least not to hasten. Western emigration, as a nar
row poUcy. Perhaps I ought to have quaUfied the expression ;
because, Sfr, I am now about to quote the opinion of one
to whom I woffid impute nothing narrow. I am about to
refer you to the language of a gentleman of much and de
served ffistffiction, a member of the other House, and occu-
pyffig a prominent situation there. The gentleman, Sfr, is from
South CaroUna. In 1825, a debate arose in the House of Rep-

First Speech on Foot's Resolution 26

/

resentatives on the subject of the Western Road. It happened
to me to take some part in the debate ; I was answered by the
honorable gentleman to whom I allude, and I repUed. May 1
be pardoned, Sfr, ff I read a part of this debate ? —
" The gentleman from Massachusetts has urged," said Mr. McDuffie,
" as one leading reason why the government should make roads to the
West, that these roads have a tendency to settle the public lands ; that
they increase the inducements to settlement, and that this is a national
object. Sir, I differ entirely from his views on the subject. I think
that the public lands are settling quite fast enough ; that our people
need no stimulus to urge them thither, but want rather a check, at
least on that artificial tendency to Western settlement which we have
created by our own laws.
" The gentleman says, that the great object of government with re
spect to those lands is, not to make them a source of revenue, but to get
them setded. What would have been thought of this argument in the
old thirteen States ? It amounts to this, that those States are to offer a
bonus of their own impoverishment, to create a vortex to swallow up our
floating population. Look, Sir, at the present aspect of the Southern
States. In no part of Europe will you see the same indications of de
cay. Deserted vUlages, houses falling to ruin, impoverished lands
thrown out of cultivation. Sir, I believe that, if the public lands had
never been sold, the aggregate amount of the national wealth would
have been greater at this moment. Our population, if concentrated in
the old States, and not ground down by tariffs, would have been more
prosperous and wealthy. But every inducement has been held out to
them to settle in. the West, until our population has become sparse, and
then the effects of this sparseness are now to be counteracted by another
artificial system. Sir, I say if there is any object worthy the attention
of this government, it is a plan which shall limit the sale of the public
lands. If those lands were sold according to their real value, be it so.
But while the government continues as it does to give them away, they
wiU draw the population of the older States, and still further increase
the effect which is already distressingly felt, and which must go to di
minish the value of all those States possess. And this, Sir, is held out
to us as a motive for granting the present appropriation. I would not,
indeed, prevent the formation of roads on these considerations, but I
certainly would not encourage it. Sir, there is an additional item in the
account of the benefits which this government has conferred on the
Western States. It is the sale of the public lands at the minimum price.
At this moment we are selling to the people of the West, lands, at one
dollar and twenty-five cents, which are worth fifteen dollars, and which
would sell at that price if the markets were not glutted."

268 Speeches in Congress
Mr. Webster observed, in reply, that
" The gentleman from South Carolina had mistaken him, if he sup
posed that it was his wish so to hasten the sales of the public lands, as
to throw them into the hands of purchasers who would sell again. His
idea only went as far as this : that the price should be fixed so low as
not to prevent the settlement of the lands, yet not so low as to allow
speculators to purchase. Mr. Webster observed, that he could not at all
concur with the gentleman from South Carolma, in wishing to restrain
the laboring classes of population in the Eastern States from going to
any part of our territory where they could better their condition ; nor
did he suppose that such an idea was anywhere entertained. The ob
servations of the gentleman had opened to him new views of policy on
this subject, and he thought he now could perceive why some of our
States continued to have such bad roads ; it must be for the purpose of
preventing people from going out of them. The gentleman from South
Carolina supposes, that, if our population had been confined to the old
thirteen States, the aggregate wealth of the country would have been
greater than it now is. But, Sir, it is an error, that the increase of the
aggregate of the national wealth is the object chiefly to be pursued by
government. The distribution of the national wealth is an object quite
as important as its increase. He was not surprised that the old States
not increasing in population so fast as was expected, (for he believed
nothing like a decrease was pretended,) should be an idea by no means
agreeable to gentlemen from those States. We are all reluctant to
submit to the loss of relative importance ; but this was nothing more
than the natural condition of a country densely peopled in one part,
and possessing in another a vast tract of unsettled lands. The plan of
the gentleman went to reverse the order of nature, vainly expecting to
retain men within a small and comparatively unproductive territory, ' who
have all the world before them where to choose.' For his own part, he
was in favor of letting population take its own course ; he should expe
rience no feeling of mortification if any of his constituents liked better
to settle on the Kansas or Arkansas, or elsewhere within our territory ;
let them go, and be happier if they could. The gentleman says, our
aggregate of wealth would have been greater if our population had been
restrained within the limits of the old States ; but does he not consider
population to be wealth ? And has not this been increased by the set
tlement of a new and fertile country .? Such a country presents the most
alluring of all prospects to a young and laboring man ; it gives him a
freehold, it offers to him weight and respectability in society ; and above
all, it presents to him a prospect of a permanent provision for his chil
dren. Sir, these are inducements which never were resisted, and never

First Speech on Foot's Resolution 269
will be ; and, were the whole extent of country filled with population
up to the Rocky Mountains, these inducements would carry that popula
tion forward to the shores of the Pacific Ocean. Sir, it is in vain to
talk ; individuals will seek their own good, and not any artificial aggre
gate of the national wealth. A young enterprising and hardy agricul
turist c£ui conceive of nothing better to him than plenty of good, cheap
land." Sfr, with the reaffing of these extiacts I leave the subject
The Senate will bear me witness that I am not accustomed to
aUude to local opinions, nor to compare or contiast ffifferent
portions of the countiy. I have often suffered things to pass
without any observation, which I might properly enough have
considered as deserving remark. But I have felt it my duty,
on tffis occasion, to vinfficate the State I represent from charges
and imputations on her pubUc character and conduct, wffich I
know to be undeserved and unfounded. If advanced elsewhere,
they might be passed, perhaps, without notice. But whatever
is said here is supposed to be entitied to pubUc regard, and to
deserve pubUc attention; it derives importance and dignity
from the place where it is uttered. As a true representative of
the State wffich has sent me here, it is my duty, and a duty
wffich I shaU fuffU, to place her history and her conduct, her
honor and her character, in thefr just and proper Ught, so often
as I think an attack is made upon her, so respectable as to de
serve to be repeUed.

mm

.•Mt'.nj;."!;'""

W

1

'M'

-¦*WW,

m

M^

¦'¦mm

«:-;¦• ¦¦¦¦¦: .'y^Zoi
oOcv-- • ¦-¦¦^^

m

¦}ut'j<Jiiv'>i-j.- ;. --'Jy;

$:^:^JjS^^

^0WtSt-5^5v{H^;:
3C^
:H:M
JW^Jx'vS
^.^¦^':
m¦r.-'jK
::< :::.n;:^«!:
r);()iil.i:;i(- i