ed States. At that day they held the original act of incorporation to be a usurpation of power, not delegated to Congress by the constitution, and to their exertions we were indebted for the downfall of that institution. The same distinguished members, at a subsequent period, acting under the high obligations of duty, and the solemnity of their oaths to support the constitution of the United States, aided and assisted in establishing the mammoth bank, which now threatens to sweep with the besom of destruction every other monied institution in the nation into the gulf of ruin and bankruptcy. It will not be pretended that both these opposite opinions were correct; and yet I should be very sorry either to impugn the motives which actuated those gentlemen in the instances referred to, or to pass a censure on their conduct for an unintentional violation of the constitution, calculated to withdraw from them the confidence of their constituents. There was a time, Mr. Chairman, when the republican phalanx in every quarter of the union regarded the specification of powers in the constitution as the limitation of the grant, within which every department ought to be strictly confined. But at this day we are told, that this literal construction of the instrument is too narrow for the expanded views of an American statesman; mere" water-gruel," insipid to the palate, and requiring the addition of a little fuel to give it energy and action to conduct this nation to the high destinies which await it. No power can be called for by an existing exigency, or a favorite system of policy, which, according to the doctrines now advanced, may not be found necessary and proper to carry into effect some one of the specified powers in the constitution. The flexible character of man, and the frailty of human nature, afford an ample apology for these oscillations, and wretched indeed would be our situation if crime consisted in error, unaccompanied by the pre-existing will to perpetrate it. No man who respects his feelings or his character would accept a public trust on such conditions. As well might

we censure the supreme court for having given a decision which we deemed contrary to the constitution, and where no corruption could be alleged against the judges who pronounced it; which is an essential ingredient to constitute an offence for which a judicial officer is liable to impeachment. In such a case our censure might be retorted by an attachment for contempt, and the honorable Speaker, representing the majesty of this House, would be compelled to answer the charge by purgation, or otherwise, as the wisdom of the House should direct. I mention this to show the absurdity and inefficiency of every attempt to transcend the powers secured to us by the constitution. Sir, I am sick to loathing of this incongruous, novel and impotent effort to wound the sensibility of a hero, who has sacrificed whatever of health or fortune he possessed, and staked his life in common with the soldier by whose side he fought, that our exposed and unprotected frontier might once more repose in peace and tranquillity, undisturbed by the midnight yell of the merciless savage.

The hero of New Orleans wanted not a petty Indian war to satiate his ambition, or add fresh laurels to the wreath already bequeathed to him by his country. It was a war of hardships, fatigues and privations, in which for himself he had nothing to hope but the consolation of having accomplished the object for which he took the field, and of receiving the approbation of the President, to whom alone he was responsible for all the incidents of the campaign in which he participated. Of this reward, so well merited, and so freely bestowed, we now seek to rob him, by fulminating resolutions and vindictive eloquence. against what honorable gentlemen are pleased to call a patriotic unintentional violation of the constitution.

[The committee then rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again; and the House adjourned. On the following day, Mr. Poindexter resumed his argument.]

Mr. Chairman, I wish it to be distinctly understood, that the view which I had the honor to take of this subject on yesterday, was not intended to shield the conduct of general Jackson from the strictest scrutiny. Even before this unconstitutional court, unheard and undefended, he fears not the penetrating touch of the most rigid investigation. He asks no palliatives, no exemption from responsibility. He needs only that protection which justice, sternly administered, affords to every virtuous man in the community. The argument was directed to the judgment of the House, in reference to its own legitimate powers, as a separate branch of the national legislature. These consist of the right to judge of the elections and returns of our own members; to determine the rules of our own proceedings to punish members for disorderly behaviour; and, with the concurrence of two thirds, to expel a member: and they are all the ultimate powers of the House of Representatives. Allow me, sir, in closing my remarks on this point, to call the attention of the committee to an opinion which fell from the venerable George Clinton, a short time before he took a final leave of this world, and was deposited among the tombs of the fallen heroes and patriots, who, with him, had achieved the independence of their country. Placed in the chair of the senate of the United States, he was required, by an equal division of that body, to give a casting vote on the question touching the power of Congress to incorporate a national bank. It will be recollected that he negatived that proposition, and in support of his vote advanced the reasoning by which he was influenced, which he concluded with the following judicious and pertinent admonition: "In the course of a long life, I have found that government is not to be strengthened by an assumption of doubtful powers, but by a wise and energetic execution of those which are incontestible; the former never fails to produce suspicion and distrust, whilst the latter inspires respect and confidence." The sentiment is worthy

of the head and the heart which dictated it, and if properly improved will constitute a rich legacy from that inflexible patriot to those who may follow in the path of legislation. I earnestly recommend it to the favorable consideration of this body.

I now, sir, proceed to the topics already discussed with such distinguished ability. Perhaps I shall be guilty of a useless trespass on the patience of the committee in attempting to give them a further examination. The causes and origin of the Seminole war, its prosecution and final termination, have resounded in our ears until every feeling is paralyzed, and all the avenues to conviction are closed, by the frost of cold indifference, or the fatal spell of unconquerable prejudice. Under such discouraging circumstances, l'enter with diffidence on the task of exploring the ground over which so many have trodden before me. Urged on, however, by a sense of duty and of the important results which may flow from the decision to be pronounced on these interesting subjects, I claim the indulgence of the committee while I submit my opinions in relation to the principles and facts involved in them. The causes of this war stand first in the order of the discussion: upon a clear understanding of these, materially depends the justification of the conduct observed in the prosecution of the war. Many of the rights which appertain to a belligerent in a defensive, cannot be claimed in an offensive war, and this is more particularly the case in respect to that which is now the subject of consideration. The honorable Speaker, aware of the necessity of affixing the guilt of the contest on the United States to sustain his conclusions, has labored to excite our commiseration for the poor, degraded, half starved, persecuted Seminoles, while he charges the people of Georgia with robberies and murders on their innocent, unoffending neighbors; who, in their own defence, were compelled to take up arms and retaliate the injustice which had been practised against them. To these outrages, and the ac

quisition of Indian lands by the treaty of Fort Jackson, combined with the dictatorial terms of that treaty, I understood the honorable gentleman to attribute the war which has produced so much excitement in this House. Sir, I apprehend no gentleman on this floor is better acquainted with the origin of this war than the honorable member from Georgia, who opened this debate; and if he is willing to admit the charge of robbery and murder made on his constituents-be it so. For one, I can only say, that no satisfactory evidence has been adduced of the fact, and I am, therefore, bound to controvert it.

[The Speaker explained: he meant only to express his fears that such was the fact, without intending to use the strong language which Mr. Poindexter had ascribed to him. Mr. Poindexter proceeded.]

Sir, I have the speech of the honorable gentleman before me; it contains not only the substance of this charge on the people of Georgia, but it refers, in extenso, to a paper signed by the chiefs of ten towns, addressed to the commanding officer at Fort Hawkins, specifying their grievances and the wrongs committed on them by the Georgians, for which they demanded an atonement. This paper the honorable gentleman has characterized as an artless tale, told in language pathetic and feeling, which carried internal evidence of, at least, the belief of the authors of it, that they were writing the truth. It complains, that the "white people carried off all the red people's cattle, and still continued to do so; that the whites first begun; that, three years since, the whites killed three Indians, and, since that, three others; that the whites stole their horses, and all they had, and killed three more Indians; to which they have since added six more." Satisfaction is said to have been taken for all except three of the Indians alleged to have been murdered by the whites. From this summary of the paper referred to in support of the argument of the honorable Speaker, and the weight which he has attach