Page images
PDF
EPUB

which it implied had, at least, but too much the | eral Jackson to have done in attacking Pensacola appearance of truth in it. Could the governor have done less than write some such letter? We have only to reverse situations, and suppose him to have been an American governor. General Jackson says that when he received that letter he no longer hesitated. No, sir, he did no longer hesitate. He received it on the 23d, he was in Pensacola on the 24th, and immediately after set himself before the fortress of San Carlos de Barancas, which he shortly reduced. "Veni, vidi, vici." Wonderful energy! Admirable promptitude! Alas! that it had not been an energy and a promptitude within the pale of the constitution, and according to the orders of the chief magistrate. It is impossible to give any definition of war that would not comprehend these acts. It was open, undisguised, and unauthorized hostility.

The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts has endeavored to derive some authority to General Jackson from the message of the president, and the letter of the Secretary of War to Governor Bibb. The message declares that the Spanish authorities are to be respected whereever maintained. What the president means by their being maintained is explained in the orders themselves, by the extreme case being put of the enemy seeking shelter under a Spanish fort. If even in that case he was not to attack, certainly he was not to attack in any case of less strength. The letter to Governor Bibb admits of a similar explanation. When the secretary says, in that letter, that General Jackson is fully empowered to bring the Seminole war to a conclusion, he means that he is so empowered by his orders, which, being now before us, must speak for themselves. It does not appear that General Jackson ever saw that letter, which was dated at this place after the capture of St Marks. I will take a momentary glance at the orders.

for an Indian town, by attempting the defence both of the President and General Jackson. If it were right in him to seize the place, it is impossible that it should have been right in the President immediately to surrender it. We, sir, are the supporters of the President. We regret that we cannot support General Jackson also. The gentleman's liberality is more comprehensive than ours. I approve with all my heart of the restoration of Pensacola. I think St. Marks ought, perhaps, to have been also restored; but I say this with doubt and diffidence. That the President thought the seizure of the Spanish posts was an act of war, is manifest from his opening message, in which he says that, to have retained them, would have changed our relations with Spain, to do which the power of the executive was incompetent, Congress alone possessing it. The President has, in this instance, deserved well of his country. He has taken the only course which he could have pursued, consistent with the constitution of the land. And I defy the gentleman. to make good both his positions, that the general was right in taking, and the President right in giving up, the posts.

Mr. Holmes explained.

The gentleman from Massachusetts is truly unfortunate; fact or principle is always against him. The Spanish posts were not in the possession of the enemy. One old Indian only was found in the Barancas, none in Pensacola, none in St. Marks. There was not even the color of a threat of Indian occupation as it regards Pensacola and the Barancas. Pensacola was to be restored unconditionally, and might, therefore, immediately have come into the possession of the Indians, if they had the power and the will to take it. The gentleman is in a dilemma On the 2d of December, 1817, General Gaines from which there is no escape. He gave up was forbidden to cross the Florida line. Seven General Jackson when he supported the Presidays after, the Secretary of War having arrived dent, and gave up the President when he suphere, and infused a little more energy into our ported General Jackson. I rejoice to have seen councils, he was authorized to use a sound dis- the President manifesting, by the restoration of cretion in crossing or not. On the 16th, he Pensacola, his devotedness to the constitution. he was instructed again to consider himself at When the whole country was ringing with liberty to cross the line, and pursue the enemy; plaudits for its capture, I said, and I said alone, but, if he took refuge under a Spanish fortress, in the limited circle in which I moved, that the the fact was to be reported to the Department President must surrender it; that he could not of War. These orders were transmitted to Gen- hold it. It is not my intention to inquire, eral Jackson, and constituted, or ought to have whether the army was or was not constitutionconstituted, his guide. There was then no jus- ally marched into Florida. It is not a clear tification for the occupation of Pensacola, and question, and I am inclined to think that the the attack on the Barancas, in the message of express authority of Congress ought to have the President, the letter to Governor Bibb, or been asked. The gentleman from Massachu in the orders themselves. The gentleman from setts will allow me to refer to a part of the corMassachusetts will pardon me for saying, that respondence at Ghent different from that which he has undertaken what even his talents are not he has quoted. He will find the condition of competent to the maintenance of directly con- the Indians there accurately defined. And it is radictory propositions, that it was right in widely variant from the gentleman's ideas on General Jackson to take Pensacola, and wrong this subject. The Indians, inhabiting the United in the President to keep it. The gentleman has States, according to the statement of the Amer made a greater mistake than he supposes Gen-ican commissioners at Ghent, have a qualified

sovereignty only, the supreme sovereignty residing in the Government of the United States. They live under their own laws and customs, may inhabit and hunt their lands; but acknowledge the protection of the United States, and have no right to sell their lands but to the Government of the United States. Foreign powers or foreign subjects have no right to maintain any intercourse with them, without our permission. They are not, therefore, independent nations, as the gentleman supposes. Maintaining the relation described with them, we must allow a similar relation to exist between Spain and the Indians residing within her dominions. She must be, therefore, regarded as the sovereign of Florida, and we are, accordingly, treating with her for the purchase of it. In strictness, then, we ought first to have demanded of her to restrain the Indians, and, that failing, we should have demanded a right of passage for | our army. But, if the President had the power to march an army into Florida, without consulting Spain, and without the authority of Congress, he had no power to authorize any act of hostility against her. If the gentleman | had even succeeded in showing that an authority was conveyed by the executive to General Jackson to take the Spanish posts, he would only have established that unconstitutional orders had been given, and thereby transferred the disapprobation from the military officer to the executive. But no such orders were, in truth, given. The President acted in conformity to the constitution, when he forbade the attack of a Spanish fort, and when, in the same spirit, he surrendered the posts themselves.

I will not trespass much longer upon the time of the committee; but I trust I shall be indulged with some few reflections upon the danger of permitting the conduct on which it has been my painful duty to animadvert, to pass without the solemn expression of the disapprobation of this House. Recall to your recollection the free nations which have gone before us. Where are they now?

not preserve the liberties of his devoted country! The celebrated Madame de Staël, in her last and perhaps her best work, has said, that in the very year, almost the very month, when the president of the directory declared that monarchy would never more show its frightful head in France, Bonaparte, with his grenadiers, entered the palace of St. Cloud, and dispersing, with the bayonet, the deputies of the people, deliberating on the affairs of the State, laid the foundation of that vast fabric of despotism which overshadowed all Europe. I hope not to be misunderstood; I am far from intimating that General Jackson cherishes any designs inimical to the liberties of the country. I believe his intentions to be pure and patriotic. I thank God that he would not, but I thank him still more that he could not if he would, overturn the liberties of the Republic. But precedents, if bad, are fraught with the most dangerous consequences. Man has been described, by some of those who have treated of his nature, as a bundle of habits. The definition is much truer when applied to governments. Precedents are their habits. There is one important difference between the formation of habits by an individual and by governments. He contracts only after frequent repetition. A single instance fixes the habit and determines the direction of governments. Against the alarming doctrine of unlimited discretion in our military commanders when applied even to prisoners of war, I must enter my protest. It begins upon them; it will end on us. I hope our happy form of government is to be perpetual. But, if it is to be preserved, it must be by the practice of virtue, by justice, by moderation, by magnanimity, by greatness of soul, by keeping a watchful and steady eye on the executive; and, above all, by holding to a strict accountability the military branch of the public force.

We are fighting a great moral battle, for the benefit not only of our country, but of all mankind. The eyes of the whole world are in fixed attention upon us. One, and the largest portion of it, is gazing with contempt, with jealousy,

"Gone glimmering through the dream of things that and with envy; the other portion, with hope,

were,

A school-boy's tale, the wonder of an hour."

And how have they lost their liberties? If we could transport ourselves back to the ages when Greece and Rome flourished in their greatest prosperity, and mingling in the throng, should ask a Grecian if he did not fear that some daring military chieftain, covered with glory, some Philip or Alexander, would one day overthrow the liberties of his country, the confident and indignant Grecian would exclaim, No! no! we have nothing to fear from our heroes; our liberties will be eternal. If a Roman citizen had been asked, if he did not fear that the conqueror of Gaul might establish a throne upon the ruins of public liberty, he would have instantly repelled the unjust insinuation. Yet Greece fell; Cæsar passed the Rubiton, and the patriotic arm even of Brutus could

with confidence, and with affection. Everywhere the black cloud of legitimacy is suspended over the world, save only one bright spot, which breaks out from the political hemisphere of the west, to enlighten, and animate, and gladden the human heart. Obscure that by the downfall of liberty here, and all mankind are enshrouded in a pall of universal darkness. To you, Mr. Chairman, belongs the high privilege of transmitting, unimpaired, to posterity, the fair character and liberty of our country. Do you expect to execute this high trust, by trampling or suffering to be trampled down, law, justice, the constitution, and the rights of the people? by exhibiting examples of inhu manity, and cruelty, and ambition? When the minions of despotism heard, in Europe, of the seizure of Pensacola, how did they chuckle, and chide the admirers of our institutions, tauntingly

Mr. Johnson, the faithful and consistent sentinel of the law and of the constitution, disapproved in that instance, as he does in this, and moved an inquiry. The public mind remained agitated and unappeased, until the recent atonement so honorably made by the gallant commodore. And is there to be a distinction between the officers of the two branches of the public service? Are former services, however eminent, to preclude even inquiry into recent miscon duct? Is there to be no limit, no prudential bounds to the national gratitude? I am not disposed to censure the President for not ordertial. Perhaps, impelled by a sense of gratitude, he determined, by anticipation, to extend to the general that pardon which he had the undoubted right to grant after sentence. Let us not shrink from our duty. Let us assert our constitutional powers, and vindicate the instrument from military violation.

pointing to the demonstration of a spirit of injustice and aggrandizement made by our country, in the midst of an amicable negotiation! Behold, said they, the conduct of those who are constantly reproaching kings! You saw how those admirers were astounded and hung their heads. You saw, too, when that illustrious man, who presides over us, adopted his pacific, moderate, and just course, how they once more lifted up their heads with exultation and delight beaming in their countenances. And you saw how those minions themselves were finally compelled to unite in the general praises bestowed upon our government. Beware how you forfeiting a court of inquiry, or a general court-marthis exalted character. Beware how you give a fatal sanction, in this infant period of our republic, scarcely yet two-score years old, to military insubordination. Remember that Greece had her Alexander, Rome her Caesar, England her Cromwell, France her Bonaparte, and that if we would escape the rock on which they split, we must avoid their errors.

I hope gentleman will deliberately survey the How different has been the treatment of awful isthmus on which we stand. They may General Jackson and that modest, but heroic bear down all opposition; they may even vote young man, a native of one of the smallest the general the public thanks; they may carry States in the Union, who achieved for his coun- him triumphantly through this House. But, if try, on Lake Erie, one of the most glorious they do, in my humble judgment, it will be a victories of the late war. In a moment of triumph of the principle of insubordination, a passion, he forgot himself, and offered an act triumph of the military over the civil authority, of violence which was repented of as soon as a triumph over the powers of this House, a perpetrated. He was tried, and suffered the triumph over the constitution of the land. And judgment to be pronounced by his peers. Pub-I pray most devoutly to Heaven, that it may lic justice was thought not even then to be not prove, in its ultimate effects and consesatisfied. The press and Congress took up the quences, a triumph over the liberties of the eubject. My honorable friend from Virginia, people.

SPEECH ON INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT.

Mr. Clay delivered this speech, in the House of Representatives of the United States, on the sixteenth of January, 1824; on "a bill authorizing the President of the United States to cause certain surveys and estimates to be made on the subject of roads and canals:"

MR. CHAIRMAN: I cannot enter n the discussion of the subject before us, without first asking leave to express my thanks for the kindness of the committee, in so far accommodating me as to agree, unanimously, to adjourn its sitting to the present time, in order to afford me the opportunity of exhibiting my views; which, however, I fear I shall do very unacceptably. As a requital for this kindness, I will endeavor, as far as is practicable, to abbreviate what I have to present to your consideration. Yet, on a question of this extent and moment, there are so many topics which demand a deliberate examination, that, from the nature of the case, it will be impossible, I am afraid, to

[ocr errors]

reduce the argument to any thing that the com-
mittee will consider a reasonable compass.
has now existed for several years a difference
It is known to all who hear me, that there
of opinion between the executive and legislative
branches of this government, as to the nature
and extent of certain powers conferred upon it
by the constitution. Two successive Presidents
have returned to Congress bills which had pre-
viously passed both Houses of that body, with
a communication of the opinion, that Congress,
under the constitution, possessed no power to
enact such laws. High respect, personal and
official, must be felt by all, as it is due, to those
distinguished officers, and to their opinions,
thus solemnly announced; and the most pro-
found consideration belongs to our present
chief magistrate, who has favored this House
with a written argument, of great length and
labor, consisting of not less than sixty or seventy
pages, in support of his exposition of the con-
stitution. From the magnitude of the interests
involved in the question, all will readily concur

that, if the power is granted, and does really exist, it ought to be vindicated, upheld and maintained, that the country may derive the great benefits which may flow from its prudent exercise. If it has not been communicated to Congress, then all claim to it should be, at once, surrendered. It is a circumstance of peculiar regret to me, that one more competent than myself had not risen to support the course which the legislative department has heretofore felt itself bound to pursue on this great question. Of all the trusts which are created by human agency, that is the highest, most solemn, and most responsible, which involves the exercise of political power. Exerted when it has not been intrusted, the public functionary is guilty of usurpation. And his infidelity to the public good is not, perhaps, less culpable, when he neglects or refuses to exercise a power which has been fairly conveyed, to promote the public prosperity. If the power, which he thus forbears to exercise, can only be exerted by himif no other public functionary can employ it, and the public good requires its exercise, his treachery is greatly aggravated. It is only in those cases where the object of the investment of power is the personal ease or aggrandizement of the public agent, that his forbearance to use it is praiseworthy, gracious, or magnanimous.

post offices and post roads, to regulate commerce among the several States, that in relation to the judiciary, besides many other powers indisputably belonging to the federal government, are strictly municipal. If, as I understood the gentleman in the course of the subsequent part of his argument to admit, some municipal powers belong to the one system, and some to the other, we shall derive very little aid from the gentleman's principle, in making the discrimination between the two. The question must ever remain open-whether any given power, and, of course, that in question, is or is not delegated to this government, or retained by the States?

The conclusion of the gentleman is, that all internal improvements belong to the State governments: that they are of a limited and local character, and are not comprehended within the scope of the federal powers, which relate to external or general objects. That many, perhaps most internal improvements, partake of the character described by the gentleman, I shall not deny. But it is no less true that there are others, emphatically national, which neither the policy, nor the power, nor the interests, of any State will induce it to accomplish, and which can only be effected by the application of the resources of the nation. The improveI was extremely happy to find, that, on many ment of the navigation of the Mississippi furof the points of the argument of the honorable nishes a striking example. This is undeniably gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Barbour, there is a great and important object. The report of a entire concurrence between us, widely as we highly scientific and intelligent officer of the differ in our ultimate conclusions. On this engineer corps (which I hope will be soon taken occasion (as on all others on which that gentle- up and acted upon) has shown that the cost of man obliges the House with an expression of any practicable improvement in the navigation his opinions), he displayed great ability and of that river, in the present state of the inhabingenuity; and, as well from the matter as itants of its banks, is a mere trifle in comparison from the respectful manner of his argument, it to the great benefits which would accrue from is deserving of the most thorough consideration. it. I believe that about double the amount of I am compelled to differ from that gentleman at the loss of a single steamboat and cargo (the the very threshold. He commenced by laying Tennessee) would effect the whole improvement down as a general principle, that, in the distri- in the navigation of that river, which ought to bution of powers among our federal and State be at this time attempted. In this great object governments, those which are of a municipal twelve States and two territories are, in different character are to be considered as appertaining degrees, interested. The power to effect the to the State governments, and those which improvement of that river is surely not municirelate to external affairs, to the general govern- pal, in the sense in which the gentleman used ment. If I may be allowed to throw the argu- the term. If it were, to which of the twelve ment of the gentleman into the form of a States and two territories concerned does it syllogism (a shape which I presume would be belong? It is a great object, which can only quite agreeable to him), it amounts to this: be effected by a confederacy. And here is municipal powers belong exclusively to the existing that confederacy, and no other can State governments; but the power to make in- lawfully exist: for the constitution prohibits ternal improvements is municipal; therefore it the States, immediately interested, from enterbelongs to the State governments alone. I denying into any treaty or compact with each other. both the premises and the conclusion. If the Other examples might be given to show, that, gentleman had affirmed that certain municipal if even the power existed, the inclination to powers, and the great mass of them, belong to exert it would not be felt, to effectuate certain the State governments, his proposition would improvements eminently calculated to promote have been incontrovertible. But if he had so the prosperity of the union. Neither of the qualified it, it would not have assisted the gen- three States, nor all of them united, through tleman at all in his conclusion. But surely the which the Cumberland road passes, would ever power of taxation, the power to regulate the have erected that road. Two of them would value of coin, the power to establish a uniform have thrown in every impediment to its comstandard of weights and measures, to establish | pletion in their power. Federative in its char

acter, it could only have been executed so far | parts of the constitution which appear to me to by the application of federative means. Again, the contemplated canal through New Jersey; that to connect the waters of the Chesapeake and Delaware; that to unite the Ohio and the Potomac, are all objects of a general and federative nature, in which the States, through which they might severally pass, could not be expected to feel any such special interest as would lead to their execution. Tending, as undoubtedly they would do, to promote the good of the whole, the power and the treasure of the whole must be applied to their execution, if they are ever consummated.

I do not think, then, that we shall be at all assisted in expounding the Constitution of the United States, by the principle which the gentleman from Virginia has suggested in respect to municipal powers. The powers of both governments are undoubtedly municipal, often operating upon the same subject. I think a better rule than that which the gentleman furnished for interpreting the constitution, might be deduced from an attentive considération of the peculiar character of the articles of confederation, as contrasted with that of the present constitution. By those articles, the powers of the thirteen United States were exerted collaterally. They operated through an intermediary. They were addressed to the several States, and their execution depended upon the pleasure and the co-operation of the States individually. The States seldom fulfilled the expectations of the general government in regard to its requisitions, and often wholly disappointed them. Languor and debility, in the movement of the old confederation, were the inevitable consequence of that arrangement of power. By the existing constitution, the powers of the general government act directly on the persons and things within its scope, without the intervention or impediments incident to any intermediary. In executing the great trust which the Constitution of the United States creates, we must, therefore, reject that interpretation of its provisions which would make the general government dependent upon those of the States for the execution of any of its powers, and may safely conclude that the only genuine construction would be that which should enable this government to execute the great purposes of its institution, without the co-operation, and, if indispensably necessary, even against the will, of any particular State. This is the characteristic difference between the two systems of government, of which we should never lose sight. Interpreted in the one way, we shall relapse into the feebleness and debility of the old confederacy. In the other, we shall escape from its evils, and fulfil the great purposes which the enlightened framers of the existing constitution intended to effectuate. The importance of this essential difference in the two forms of government, will be shown in the future progress of the argument.

Before I proceed to comment upon those

convey the power in question, I hope I shall be allowed to disclaim, for my part, several sources whence others have deduced the authority. The gentleman from Virginia seemed to think it remarkable that the friends of the power should disagree so much among themselves; and to draw a conclusion against its existence from the fact of this discrepancy. But I can see nothing extraordinary in this diversity of views. What is more common than for different men to contemplate the same subject under various aspects? Such is the nature of the human mind, that enlightened men, perfectly upright in their intentions, differ in their opinions on almost every topic that could be mentioned. It is rather a presumption in favor of the cause which I am humbly maintaining, that the same result should be attained by so many various modes of reasoning. But, if contrariety of views may be pleaded with any effect against the advocates of the disputed power, it equally avails against their opponents. There is, for example, not a very exact coincidence in opinion between the President of the United States and the gentleman from Virginia. The President says, (page 25 of his book,) "the use of the existing road, by the stage, mail carrier, or post boy, in passing over it, as others do, is all that would be thought of; the jurisdiction and soil remaining to the State, with a right in the State, or those authorized by its legislature, to change the road at pleasure. Again, page 27, the President asks, "if the United States possessed the power, contended for under this grant, might they not, in adopting the roads of the individual States, for the carriage of the mail, as has been done, assume jurisdiction over them, and preclude a right to interfere with or alter them?" They both agree that the general government does not possess the power. The gen tleman from Virginia admits, if I understood him correctly, that the designation of a State road as a post road, so far withdraws it from the jurisdiction of the State, that it cannot be afterwards put down or closed by the State, and in this he claims for the general government more power than the President concedes to it. The President, on the contrary, pronounces that "the absurdity of such a pretension," (that is, preventing, by the designation of a post road, the power of the State from altering or changing it,) “must be apparent to all who examine it!" The gentleman thinks that the designation of a post road withdraws it entirely, so far as it is used for that purpose, from the power of the whole State; whilst the President thinks it absurd to assert that a mere county court may not defeat the execution of a law of the United States! The President thinks that, under the power of appropriating the money of the United States, Congress may apply it to any object of internal improvement, provided it does not assume any territorial ju risdiction; and, in this respect, he claims for the general government more power than the

« PreviousContinue »