JANUARY 2, 3, 1833.] Reduction of Postage.--Duties on Imports. ble, in order to follow it with a motion to proceed to the consideration of Executive business. Mr. SPRAGUE hoped that the Senate would now take the question. He would not say another word. Mr. SMITH then yielded. [SENATE. Grundy, Hill, Kane, King, Mangum, Robinson, Smith, NAYS.-Messrs. Bell, Bibb, Black, Chambers, Clay, Mr. MILLER rose to give, in a word or two, the reasons which would induce him to vote against the resolution. If the Senate gave an instruction to their commit- The question then recurred upon the amendment offertees, the instruction ought to be definite. This resolution ed by Mr. BROWN, to strike out the whole of the oriwas so defective in this particular, that the committee ginal resolution and insert the proposition reported by the might substantially avoid the reductions which were ex- Committee on Finance, to wit: pected. They are directed to do something, or to do nothing. If responsibility was to be taken from the committee, they ought to be plainly instructed what they were to do. He would vote in favor of the amendment, and whenever the committee should make their report, if any gentleman should offer a proposition more agreeable to him than the report, he would vote for it. The question was then put on the amendment offered by Mr. GRUNDY, and decided as follows: "That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed, with as little delay as may be, to furnish the Senate with the projet of a bill for reducing the duties levied upon imports, in conformity with the suggestions made by him in his annual report." Mr. POINDEXTER, in a few words, opposed the amendment and supported the original proposition. Mr. CLAY rose to signify his desire to receive from the Treasury Department some specification of the arti YEAS.--Messrs. Benton, Bibb, Black, Brown, Buck-cles deemed essential to the national defence in time of ner, Dallas, Forsyth, Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, Kane, war. It was made the duty of that department to furKing, Mangum, Miller, Moore, Robinson, Smith, Tipton, nish all necessary information connected with the finanWhite, Wilkins.--20. ces of the country. The knowledge which the department must be supposed to possess of the general course of trade, and the operation of any given reduction upon the finances, rendered the views of the Secretary necessary to a more correct understanding of the subject. Before he recently left the city, he had, in conversation, ex NAYS.-Messrs. Bell, Chambers, Clayton, Dickerson, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Holmes, Knight, Naudain, Poindexter, Prentiss, Robbins, Seymour, Silsbee, Sprague, Tomlinson, Webster.--18. So the amendment was agreed to. The question recurring on the resolution as amended, pressed a wish to see the plan of the Treasury DepartMr. FOOT moved to amend the same by inserting after the word "reducing," the words "and equalizing." He explained that the object was to do away the inequality and injustice which prevailed under the present sys tem. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. HOLMES then moved further to amend the resolution, by adding the words "and particularly of abolishing the postage on newspapers." After a few words from Mr. GRUNDY and Mr. THURSDAY, JANUARY 3. When the doors were opened, the Senate resumed the consideration of the following resolution, submitted by Mr. POINDEXTER on the 17th ult.: ment in a specific and responsible form for the reduction of the revenue, and particularly a specification of those articles which were considered by the Executive and the Secretary as essential to national defence. As it respected the form in which this information should be imbodied, it was not a matter of much consequence, whether in the shape of a bill or in a detailed report. He, however, agreed with those who contended that the Senate should not call on the Executive or the head of a department for the projet of a bill. He felt warranted in say ing that the practice had never existed for the Senate, as a body, to call in this way for a bill. It was not unusual or improper for committees to do so; bnt if there were any precedents where either the Senate or House of Representatives had called on the head of a department for a bill, it had escaped his recollection. He should be sorry to see such a practice obtain; because it might be carried in time to such an extent, as to deprive Congress of its legitimate powers, and no bill might be permitted to pass, unless a projet was furnished by the Department. He should vote against the amendment, and in favor of the original resolution. Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to report to the Senate, with as little delay as practicable, a detailed statement of the articles of foreign Mr. SMITH considered that there was no great differgrowth or manufacture on which, in his opinion, the pre-ence between the two propositions. The original resolu sent rate of duties ought to be reduced; specifying particu- tion asked for the opinions of the Secretary--the latter larly the amount of reduction on each article separately, so called for facts. We wanted facts, and not opinions. He as to produce the result of an aggregate reduction of the was opposed to calling for the opinions of the head of any revenue six millions of dollars, on such manufactures as department. It had been the practice to call upon Mr. are classed under the general denomination of protected Hamilton, when Secretary of the Treasury, for opinions; articles; and that he also append to such report an enu- which opinions had great weight, and were with many meration of articles deemed to be "essential to our na-equal to law. These calls on Mr. Hamilton were made tional Independence in time of war," and which, there- by his friends, with a view, probably, to influence others; fore, ought, in his opinion, to be exempted from the but, in this case, he imagined the opinions of the present operation of the proposed reduction of duties. Secretary of the Treasury would weigh but little with the The question being on the amendment of Mr. KING, Senator from Mississippi, [Mr. POINDEXTER.] He believed proposing to strike out the clause of the resolution com- that Congress had called on Mr. Dallas for the projet of a mencing "and that he also append to such report," &c. bill. The original resolution was indefinite in all respects. Mr. POINDEXTER repeated, substantially, some of The other proposition would answer the purpose which the arguments used by him on a former occasion, against the proposed amendment. The question was then taken, and the amendment was rejected by the following vote: YEAS.--Messrs. Benton, Brown, Dudley, Forsyth, gentlemen desired, as the projet of a bill would explain the meaning of the general remarks of the Executive and Secretary on the subject, and would show, by its provisions, what articles were deemed essential to national defence in time of war. As this was a revenue measure, it more properly belonged to the House of Representatives; and, as the committee of that house (who had been aided in their deliberations by the Secretary of the Treasury) had reported a bill, which would be acted on forthwith, he could see no necessity for calling on the Secretary for the repetition of his views to the Senate. Mr. BROWN said he did not rise to discuss the resolution. He merely wished to controvert the remark of the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. CLAY,] that no precedent could be found in the Journals of either House, where the head of a department had been called upon for the projet of a bill. Mr. CLAY explained. He had said that no precedent of the kind had occurred within his recollection. Mr. BROWN resumed. In the remarks made by him, a few days since, on this subject, he had taken the ground that the proposition was sustained by precedent. [Mr. B. here read from the journal of the Senate, of 1831-2, a resolution submitted by Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, and adopted, calling on the Secretary of the Treasury to prepare and furnish, at the commencement of the next ses sion, a bill regulating the pay of the officers of the cus toms, &c.] Mr. B. remarked, in conclusion, that he believed the House of Representatives had made a like call, on a different subject, at the last session. Mr. CLAY said there might be a single case; but he believed there was no instance where a call of this kind had been made, where the subject had been brought to the consideration of the House and controverted. JANUARY 3, 4, 1833. on his adroitness in converting this road into a military road, because it removed it from the danger of the Presidential veto, but objected to the amendment. Mr. HENDRICKS also expressed his apprehension that the amendment would embarrass and weigh down the bill. After a few words from Mr. BUCKNER, Mr. SMITH moved to lay the bill on the table--yeas 18. TARIFF. The Senate then resumed the consideration of the resolution offered by Mr. POINDEXTER. The question being on the motion of Mr. BROWN to substitute the resolution offered from the Committee on Finance. Mr. HOLMES said, he gave the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. MANGUM] full credit for his motive in objecting to this call. He, last session, was opposed to a similar call, and he opposes this to preserve his consistency; although that was made for information concerning a bill, after the debate upon it was almost finished, and a contrary vote here, in this stage of the subject, would by no means impeach his consistency: still, (said Mr. H.) I admit, it is a great affair at this time, if a man can preserve an apparent consistency for so long a time as six months. The Senator from Maryland, [Mr. SMITH, I believe, would not consider it much of a merit to preserve consistency for any time: for, if I have understood him right, he would rank it, at best, with the minor virtues. I am in favor of the resolution which asks for a projet of a tariff, but opposed to the amendment which asks for it in the form of a bill. The reasoning of the Senator from Maryland seems to me to resist the very conclusion which he seeks. He would have facts, and not opinions. Now, if I were to call for facts, a bill is the last thing I would exact. What is a bill but a projet of a law? and whoever heard that this is a statement of facts? Every law is an experiment, an opinion. Facts state things as Mr. HOLMES had met with a document calculated to they are; opinions, what they should be. Now a bill or throw some light on the subject, but which was not then law proposes something to be done; and, so far from staat his commmand. He would, therefore, move an ad- ting facts as they are, it is usually found necessary that journment; but he withdrew the motion at the instance of each bill presented here should be accompanied by a reMr. POINDEXTER, who said he would be willing to port detailing the facts as they exist, on which the bill, accommodate the gentleman from Maine, but the subject or opinion, is based. It was, to be sure, once the prac had been some time before the Senate, fully discussed, and every Senator was prepared to give his vote. He had no doubt the gentleman would be able to bring forward precedents to bear him out in his views; but he hoped the question would be taken, and the subject finally disposed of. Mr. FOOT said it was obvious, if the bill which had been reported in the House of Representatives was the Secretary's bill, as intimated by the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. SMITH,] the amendment proposed by the gentleman from North Carolina was unnecessary. The Secretary of the Treasury has furnished us in his report with his general views on this subject: we now want the reasons upon which these general views are founded. Mr. HOLMES renewed the motion to adjourn, which was carried. The Senate then adjourned. FRIDAY, JANUARY 4. CUMBERLAND ROAD. The bill for the continuation of the Cumberland road from Vandalia, in the State of Illinois, to Jefferson City, in the State of Missouri, was then taken up in Committee of the Whole. tice to pass laws with preambles, stating the facts and reasons, but that has been long since exploded. Either the Senator or myself is hallucinated. If he wants facts, he would ask the Secretary for a bill, in which he would be very sure not to get them; and he would not call for a report, the only way in which he could possibly obtain them: that is, he would do the very thing that would defeat his professed purpose. Now, sir, I want both the facts and opinions of the Secretary, the thing as it is, and the thing as, in his opinion, it should be. And why this delicacy? Why attempt to shield a public officer from a responsibility, which the very law creating his office imposes on him? Never, before this administration, did this Senate seek for a panoply to screen a public officer from scrutiny. The act of September, 1789, establishing the Treasury Department, makes it the duty of the Secretary "to diMr. BENTON moved to amend the bill by adding after gest and propose plans for the improvement and managethe word "Missouri," the words "and thence to the ment of the revenue, and for the support of public crewestern frontier of Missouri, in the direction of the milidit;" and further, to make report, and give informatary post on the Missouri river, above the mouth of the tion to either branch of the Legislature, in person, or in Kansas river."writing, as he may be required, respecting all matters Mr. BENTON advocated his amendment as being ren-referred to him by the Senate or House of Representadered necessary by the state of the population, and the tives, or which shall appertain to his office." condition of the frontier, which required the construction of a military road similar to that of Mars's Hill, in the State of Maine. Mr. SPRAGUE moved for further time to ascertain the propriety of making this location. Mr. SMITH complimented the gentleman from Missouri Special calls were the usual way information was obtained from this department, until the act of the 10th May, 1800, made it the duty of the Secretary to make the reports, required by the act of 1789, at the commencement of each session of Congress. Now, sir, I would inquire of the Senator from Mary JANUARY 4, 1833.] Tarif. [SENATE. land how he is to distinguish these reports from opinions? to the precedent, because it was derived from the adminThe act of 1800 requires of the Secretary annual estimates istration of the Government by the federal party. Mr. of revenue and expenditures; and pray, sir, is not an esti- McL. expressed his regret that any thing should have mate an opinion, a judgment, the result of a process of fallen from that gentleman which might have a tendenreasoning? Really, sir, can the Senator be serious? Had cy to revive animosities which, for the happiness of the he not looked very grave, I should have thought he was country, ought never to be disturbed. But, he said, if disposed to be playful on this subject. These calls upon the department for opinions, as well as facts, have been the constant practice of both Houses, ever since the adoption of the constitution. In answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives the 15th January, 1790, Mr. Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, made his report on manufactures. "The embarrassments which have obstructed the progress of our external trade have led to serious reflections on the necessity of enlarging the sphere of our domestic commerce." Speaking of the productiveness of manufactures and agriculture, he says: "The maintenance of two citizens, instead of one, is going on, and the State has two members instead of one, and they, together, consume twice the value of what is produced from the land." this subject was to be introduced, he was willing to meet the gentleman from South Carolina. The precedent he had referred to, was a precedent set in party times, and of the federal party. But, said Mr. McL., it does not, because it is a precedent of the federal party, come to me with less title to respect. Is this the only precedent of that party? It is the precedent of a party, says the gentleman, capable of enacting the alien and sedition laws. True, it is, and it is the precedent of a party which organized this Government, which put it in motion, after building it up, and established the policy which, wisely cherished, had made this nation, at this day, prosperous at home and respected abroad. It is the precedent of that administration, to the wisdom of which, time, which tries all things, was fixing its seat. It is a precedent of the same party that established the judiciary, built up the navy, created an army, and laid the foundations of the system of national defence, which has afforded to us security at home, and protection abroad. After copying from that party all these measures of national "Additional employment of classes of the community glory and prosperity, why will not the honorable gentlenot particularly or necessarily engaged, women and chil-man receive from it also this precedent, which has the dren." same motives, and the same great objects in view? In "Emigration from foreign countries, greater scope for all other cases, the federal party consulted the true interthe diversity of talents, and a more ample field for enter-ests of the country; and their measures were calculated prize." to subse:ve them, or it has been folly to adopt them. In "The uncertainty of the foreign demand for the pro- the case now brought into precedent, they had the same ducts of agriculture should induce us to substitute a home objects in view, and, the gentleman will find, if he adopt market." their policy in this respect also, he will reap the fruits of this, as he has done of the other precedents set by them." "The division of labor and its effects, greater skill and dexterity, economy of time, and an extension of the use of machinery." "The arguments against the encouragement of manufactures would have great force, if perfect liberty to in- After this, sir, I trust that it will not be doubted that dustry and commerce were the prevailing system of Mr. Hamilton would be good authority with the Secretary. nations. But the regulations of several countries with But lest I should be mistaken in this, I will give you an which we have the most extensive intercourse, throw authority from the great apostle of democracy, which will serious obstructions in the way of the principal staples of no doubt have its due weight with this very democratic the United States." administration. The Secretary of State, (Mr. Jefferson,) It is no small consolation that the measures which re- to whom was referred the report of the Committee of the stricted our trade have accelerated internal improvements. House of Representatives, on the written message of the Against the hypothesis that manufactures unprotected President, of 14th February, 1791, with instructions to rewill grow up as fast as the interests of the community re-port his opinion on commercial restrictions, made 23d quire, he replies: February, 1793, observes: "The strong influence of habit, the spirit of imitation, the fear of success in untried enterprises, intrinsic difficulties incident to first essays against foreign competitors, with their skill, and the protection which they experience." "Where a nation imposes high duties on our productions, or prohibits them altogether, it may be proper for us to do the same by theirs, first burdening or excluding those productions which they bring here in competition with our own of the same kind, imposing on those duties lighter at first, but heavier and heavier afterwards, as other channels of supply open." "When a nation refuses to receive in our vessels any production but our own, we may refuse to receive in theirs any but their productions." He was called on by the House of Representatives for his opinion, for a plan, and he gave at length, and in detail, his plan and his reasons, and in a masterly manner. It is foreign from my design to discuss the merits of this State paper, my object being only to convince, even the Senator from Maryland himself, how palpably he errs in "Where a nation refuses to our vessels the carriage the position he takes; but I may be allowed to say the even of our own productions to certain countries under wisdom of the maxims he there laid down have been their domination, we might refuse to theirs of every defound, by experience, to be those of the profoundest wis-scription the carriage of the same productions to the same dom. It is possible it may be objected that those were countries." the maxims of federal times, and of an ultra federalist. I I have the journals before me, in which I might find think, however, the present Secretary will not object to cases so numerous as to prove a constant uninterrupted them on that account. I believe he never disguised his practice. I have one more under Mr. Madison's, and ultra federalism, nor shrunk from a defence of the doc- another under Mr. Monroe's administration, on this same trines of his party. I have here a speech of his delivered subject of a tariff, to which I will merely refer the Senin the House of Representatives, in 1824, from which ate, but will not delay them by reading the cases. will give the following extract: lieve I can find several where the call was made on the motion of the Senator from Maryland himself; but as he does not affect to think much of consistency, it may be as well to pass them by. I "When up before (Mr. McLane said) he had referred to the precedent of 1801, as bearing upon the present case. In answer to the argument drawn from it, the gentleman from South Carolina had denied any weight I be I repeat, sir, it seems exceedingly strange that there SENATE.] Tariff. [JANUARY 4, 1833. should be such sensation at this call upon the Treasury caprice in the little debate but what springs from the imDepartment. Why not obtain the information so much patience and fretfulness of the Senator himself. His own needed? Who is in danger? Is there, indeed, any danger? whims and caprice have so affected him, that he imagines If there is any thing obscure or equivocal in the Secreta- he sees them in others. ry's report, why should he not explain? Again: "Is the game to be resumed which was played The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. MANGUM] has through the last eight months on the great political chesstaken very strong ground, and seems almost to arraign board?" Now, as I am no gamester, he will pardon me the motives which prompt us to the call. It seems to me if I should not readily understand this figure. If there that a Senator who would invoke us to come to the sub- was any gambling concern in the last Presidential elecject of the tariff in a spirit of kindness and conciliation, tion, it was the double game played by the friends and should not set an example so very wide from his precepts. foes of the protecting system to inculcate the belief, that The Senator sounds an alarm, the Union is in danger, President Jackson was on the side of each; and though and he presents the alternative of immed ate action or the election is finished, the game seems to be kept up. ruin. I was, and am still disposed to act in a spirit of Indeed, the opposition to this call seems to be upon the conciliation, but with a spirit of prudence and discretion principle of this game, and from an apprehension lest the I have witnessed a crisis so often that they cease to alarm administration should be obliged to show its hand. me. If by immediate action is meant that we must aban- "Shall we sit here," it is inquired, "to be amused don the protecting policy before the 1st of February, by witty gentlemen, to taunt a Secretary, or embarrass then there is no such alternative as the Senator proposes, each other?" Surely here, the Senator does not mean for it is ruin at any rate; once surrender to a State, under me. I have no pretensions to wit; and if calling on a Seher threat of a dissolution of the Union, and the Union cretary to explain an equivocation, and for information is not worth preserving, it is virtually dissolved. Every on a most important subject, which he is bound by law réfractory State would catch and rely upon the example, to give, is "taunting" and "embarrassing," I, for one, and whenever a mere and ephemeral majority in a State shall continue to taunt and embarrass. becomes refractory, she may set you at defiance, compel The Senator has more than once referred to the "op. you to renounce the principle of which she complains, or position benches;" and I confess I find it difficult to understand him. It is probably designed as a figure of the Union is dissolved. Your tariff, the supposed source of supposed griev-speech. A chair is a bench, and a man is a chair; thereances, was last year modified, as was thought, to adapt fore, by one figure riding on the back of another, a man itself to the conflicting interests of all parts of the coun- is a bench: so, by opposition benches are probably intendtry. It has not yet gone into operation; and before we ed opposition members of the Senate. But still we are can even conjecture the effects of this modification, we left in the fog. Where are your opposition benches? are called upon to change again, and immediately, and un-opposition to what, and on what subject? To the adder the influence of a threat. Sir, I would act with no ministration? If you mean to every measure, there is no resentment under these circumstances, and if prudence opposition bench here; if to some particular measure, and policy would permit, I would do the same justice every one, perhaps, is an opposition bench. This last every where, as if no rebellion was threatened. But I definition, I am very sure, would include the Senator himshould much fear that, in so doing, our moives would be self, if we take for our rule his strictures on the late promisunderstood, and we should establish the dangerous clamation. In these times we find we have strange bedprecedent of surrendering a principle under the influence fellows. This nullification seems to have scattered us of the threat of a State to dissolve the Union. A State all abroad. On the subject now under discussion we are throws herself on her "sovereignty," her "reserved strangely mixed up. The mover of the resolution, [Mr. rights;" and there she is to remain until you render her POINDEXTER,] the Senators from Maryland, North Carowhat, in her own judgment, is right. And if you lina and Virginia, [Mr. SMITH, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Trrefuse, or even delay, your laws are annulled within her LER,] all originally administration men, are for the resolu limits. This is "nullification"-this is the "peaceable tion in some shape; as well as the Senators from New remedy:" peaceable to be sure, so long as you cease to Jersey and Maine, [Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN and Mr. HOLMES] resist her will, or attempt to enforce your own. Sup-who, I suppose, the gentleman would denominate "oppose our buxom sister New York should take it into her position benches;" and the Senators from Alabama, head to set herself down upon her sovereignty. Sir, North Carolina, and Kentucky, [Mr. KING, Mangum, and s rong as she is, I would get a rod, whip her up, tell her to leave off crying, wipe her eyes, make a pretty courte sy, and promise never to do so again; and after that I would inquire into the grounds of her complaints, and do her justice. BIBB,] supporters, and the Senator from Maine, [Mr. SPRAGUE] not, I believe, considered as a very ardent supporter of the administration in all things, against the resolution. It does seem to me, that the Senator will find it extremely difficult to make this a party discussion, unThe Senator from North Carolina, in his impatience, less he should be a little more fortunate in marking his line. inquires, if "this is a time for the ability and patriotism The Senator recurs again to his favorite figure of a of the Senate to be exhausted in embarrassing moves, or game of chance, and asks if he would not shuffle and to be attenuated in parliamentary manœuvre." Now, deal again." Doubtful whether I would. We have been what does he mean? Who are the manoeuvring Sena- so badly beaten, twice in succession, a short rubber I tors, and who the able and patriotic? Do his new asso- believe you call it, (don't you, Mr. President?) that I ciates, the nullifiers, constitute all the ability and patriot- should calculate a little before I sat down. And I don't ism which are arrayed by embarrassing moves and parlia- see the reason why he and his friends should wish it, unmentary maœuvre? It appears to me, Sir, it is to those less it is this-The friends of the administration and the who would shut out the light, and screen a public officer nullifiers were partners, and won the bet, and the adfrom the explanation of an equivocal report, that parlia-ministration folks took the whole, and refused to divide. mentary manœuvre is to be ascribed. It is again inquired, But this is a common case, and, if this falling out shall if "this is a time for whimsical, capricious, and injurious tend to put things back where they should be, good may violations in parliamentary tactics." To say nothing of come out of evil, and the resolution may not turn out the figure of whimsical and capricious violations in tactics, quite so great a calamity as we anticipated. And I con I must think that the question is much more "whimsical fess that the symptoms are a little propitious. This preand capricious" than it is "ingenious," and more inge-clamation is, with some exceptions, about what it should nious than ingenuous. I have witnessed no whim nor be. The Senator is not satisfied that it is so acceptable JANUARY 4, 1883.] Tariff. [SENATE. trines, however irrelevant, and even if out of order, I must be allowed to depart from the ordinary rules of debate to meet him. I protest, sir, against all the doctrines of the nullifiers as destructive of the Union. The Federal Government is no Government, if they are right. The very design of forming this constitution has failed us, if there is no coercive power in this Government to execute its own purposes, which an individual State may not effectually resist, and we are back again into the old confederation, nothing but a league which any member may at its discretion break. to the opposition. The President's "bitterest revilers speak well of it." I am not so sure of that. I have lately seen some "revilings" from a different source quite as "bitter" as any I ever heard against him or any other President. As to my own opposition, it has been to the measures, not to the man. The proclamation contains doctrines and precepts which are mine, and always have been. The right of a State to take justice into her own hands, and resist or secede from the Unjon, I have always opposed. And if this administration will carry out these principles, it will cover a multitude of sins, and I must take the liberty to approve its principles, and aid its ac- Sir, the principles of these nullifiers, as I understand tion even at the expense of the displeasure of that Senator them, are, that a State may throw herself on her reserved and his party, whoever they may be. Now do, sir, per-rights, determine a law of Congress unconstitutional, and mit me, just about to retire, to approve of one single resist its execution. Then she may call on Congress or act of the President's. There has been very little before the States for a convention, and unless three-fourths of of which I could approve, and there may not be another the States declare the law to be constitutional, it is unchance. I have never, under this administration, sought constitutional and void. Seven of the twenty-four States for occasion to find fault. It was my determination to then, being more than one-fourth, may annul any law that condemn where I must, but approve where I could. The we pass, although it may have been determined to be Senator, in reference to the proclamation, prefers the constitutional by the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial works of the administration to their faith, alluding, pro- authorities of the United States. Allowing this doctrine bably to their doings in Georgia, and their declarations to be sound, we are still "a rope of sand," and if I were as to South Carolina. Now, sir, I like their faith best, to determine whether I would preserve or abandon such their words better than their deeds. And the only fear I a Union, I would "not admit a doubt to cloud my choice." have is, that they will not carry their principles out, and Pardon me, sir, if I give you an illustration or two of this prove their faith by their works. Then their proclama- extraordinary doctrine of nullification. Suppose Ohio tions and all that will do no good, but their faith without should sit down upon her "reserved rights," and deter works will be dead, being alone. There is, I confess, mine that all our public lands within her limits became some ground to apprehend, from what has happened hers, as an attribute of her sovereignty, by the very act of heretofore, that in this case principle and practice may her admission into the Union, and should forbid all sales disagree. Hitherto there has been a most woful conflict by the United States, or declare them void. And this is between profession and action. a supposable case, for such doctrine has been urged seriatim in this Senate. Suppose further, that we should indulge her by a call of a convention, and that six other States, Indiana, Illinois, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Missouri, all the States where we have public lands, should decide that Ohio was right, and our claim to these lands was unconstitutional, this decision is final and corclusive, and our lands are gone. that it could extend only to voluntary servitude. That by the laws of nature and of God there could be no such thing as involuntary servitude or slavery, and that nothing conventional could abrogate those laws. And this, too, is a supposable case, for it has been urged in this Senate by a highly distinguished Senator from a highly respectable State. The Senator inquires if we will lend a willing ear to the answer to this call upon the Secretary. No, sir; I lend a willing ear to the answer of no officer of this or any other administration. I will, for it is my duty, look upon his report with a scrutiny bordering on jealousy, and if I should perceive an evasion or equivocation, I would, if I could, call again, or send for the Secretary, and subject him to a personal examination. No, sir, I re- Again: Suppose Pennsylvania should undertake to expel the suggestion that we are seeking occasion to censure pound that clause of the constitution which provides that that officer, or wish to make him "a target;" and why it persons held to service or labor in one State fleeing should be supposed I know not, unless his friends appre-into another, shall be delivered up, and should determine bend that he is indeed censurable, and cannot endure scrutiny. The inquiry proposed is a very simple one, and one from which no faithful officer ought to shrink. No, sir, the remark that the design to hold the Secretary up as a target is in my view illiberal, if not disorderly. I sustain this call because the law authorizes it, and requires and makes it his duty to answer it. I make no promises beforehand to confide in the answer. I shall neither approve nor disapprove in advance. I will first see and then judge. I shall leave to others the honor of that system of political ethics which determines the mat⚫ter before it has been heard. The President and his Secretary have said that a protective system is not only constitutional but expedient, of all articles indispensable to national defence, without any specification. Now what are they? Let the Secretary define, or at least specify some of them. Let us have the President's indispensables, or, if he cannot spare them, let the Secretary send us his. We would like to know what they are, how they are cut and made, in what fashion, whether British or American, and whether the material is of foreign or domestic production. If protection of articles essential to national defence is admitted to be constitutional, then nullification must go to the wall, for the constitutionality of all protection rests precisely upon the same ground. You cannot discriminate between what is and what is not essential to national defence, and if you could, the distinction would avail you nothing. Now, sir, since the Senator has brought into discussion these nullifying doc Now, would you give her a convention also? If you did, and the six New England States should decide for her, then slavery is abolished, at least in all the free States. And, quere, how much does it fall short of emancipation in all the States? Mind, I contend for no such effect. I only show to what conclusions your premises would lead; and let the South beware how it inculcates doctrines so dangerous to its safety, peace, and even existence. The slaves there would soon learn how to nullify, and would turn these principles to suit their own case. God forbid they should ever make the application! No man would deprecate such a state of things more than I should. But I forewarn gentlemen, that this doctrine of "reserved right," when applied to the relation of master and slave, may produce a state of things too terrific for description. I will only add, that so long as the Union holds together, we are bound to maintain this relation with our treasure and our blood. But so soon as it shall be dissolved, be the conflict between master and slave what it may, the free States would then repose upon their sovereignty. They would not interpose if they could, and they could not if they would. |