27TH CONG....3D SESS.

enacted and repealed-enacted by my party, repealed by the other. I hold this to be a great national measure, far above transient party. This Administration may restore it, if it will and can, and it shall have my vote-hereafter a silent vote; for I have said all I desire to say-for that great contribution to the public welfare. I do not wish to wait the advent of another Administration, with which possibly I may be more nearly associated. But I doubt all speculative action on the subject, and dread novelty-abominate expansion. I never will fail, without the slightest reference to Presidential questions, to oppose those inordinate and monstrous contrivances of Government-inconver tible paper-money and licentious exchanges by legal facilities-as the greatest stain on the character, the most destructive canker on the vitals, of this country.

SPEECH OF MR. PAYNE,

OF ALABAMA.

In the House of Representatives, January 28, 1843-
The proposition to refund the fine to General
Jackson being under consideration—
Mr. PAYNE rose and said:

Mr. SPEAKER: In rising to address the House this morning, I feel somewhat as the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BOTTS] felt a few days ago. I had reflected on this question, and on some parts of it had wished to say a few words; but, by the postponement of its consideration from day to day, inuch of what I intended to have said has escaped my recollection, and I shall find it impossible to strike on the train of thought I had marked out for myself. I shall, therefore, content myself with offering such views only as present themselves to my mind as I progress in the discussion. Besides, there was another thought which operated upon my mind when I desired to address the House a few days ago. I did believe that, by making a calm appeal to the justice and magnanimity of this House, there could be no difficulty in agreeing to refund the fine which, in my soul, I believe was unjustly imposed by Judge Hall upon Gen. Jackson, for declaring martial law at New Orleans. But I have now totally despaired of any such result; the speech of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Borrs] has convinced me that the warm and generous feelings of magnanimous nature are chilled and destroyed by the malignity of party strife and the trammels of party discipline. Ishall not, therefore, appeal to this Congress at all-look above and beyond it. To the American people I appeal. They are the fountain of justice in the reward or punishment of political men, as they are of all political power in a Government like ours. With them, this question will stand upon its own merit; it will be disconnected from the party conflicts of the day. The elevation of no political favorite will depend upon the rejection of the bill; nor will the prospects of any ambitious aspirant to the Presidency brighten by its passage. The whole question will be gauged by the square of justice; and the only inquiry will be, "Was Gen. Jackson right or wrong in declaring martial law at New Orleans?" If right, the bill ought to pass, and the fine of $1,000, with interest, ought to be refunded; if wrong, he merited his punishment, and the fine ought not to be remitted. That is the question; and it is totally immaterial what your decision may be; the people will decide that question upon principles of strict justice, and command you to execute their will.

Sir, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BOTTS] asks where Gen. Jackson derived his authority to declare martial law at New Orleans? That inquiry has been so often made, and so fully answered, that I did not expect a repetition of it from the gentleman from Virginia. But, as the interrogatory has again been repeated, I will answer it in accordance with my own views, and in my own

way.

I shall not pretend that the Constitution or laws of the United States authorize the declaration of martial law by any authority whatever. On the contrary, it is unknown to the Constitution or laws; and so guarded have those persons been, upon whom the people have conferred the power to form constitutions, either State or national, that there is scarcely a constitution of a single State in the Union which does not declare that "the military shall at all times be subordinate to the civil power;" and the Constitution of the United States inculcates the same doctrine.

Fine on General Jackson-Mr. Payne.

That the military shall always be subordinate to the civil power, is a fundamental principle in our form of government; and the genius of our institutions requires that it should be so. But it does not follow that cases may not arise, in time of war, when a commander would not only be excusable, but criminally culpable if he did not assume the responsibility of declaring martial law. Sir, what are the exigencies of war which would justify this measure? I answer-the preservation of his army from destruction; the sacking of an important and wealthy city, or the devastation and ruin of his country. To prevent any one of these results, would justify a general, before any just tribunal on earth, in declaring martial law. And to condemn a commanding officer for declaring martial law when necessary to prevent any one of these results, is virtually saying that he should stand calmly by, and witness the destruction of his army, the sack. ing of a city, or the devastation and ruin of his country, when the means were in his power to prevent it.

Who would tolerate this idea? An Arnold might, but no patriotic American could. It may be asked, upon what principle a commander can declare martial law, where it is conceded that the Constitution or laws afford him no authority to do so? I answer, upon that principle of self-defence which rises paramount to all written law; and the justification of the officer who assumes the responsibility of acting upon that principle must rest upon the necessity of the case. If that necessity cannot be made apparent, when called to answer before the civil authority of the country, he will be condemned and punished. But if the necessity was apparent, and shown to be so, he will be honorably acquitted, and a grateful country will approve the act. These were the grounds upon which General Jackson acted when he declared martial law at New Orleans, as is shown by the opinion of Mr. Livingston, the aid to General Jackson; which opinion is in the following words, and was filed among the papers of General Jackson: "On the nature and effect of the proclamation of martial law by Major General Jackson, my opinion is, that such proclamation is unknown to the Constitution and laws of the United States.

1st. "That it is to be justified only by the necessity of the case; and that, therefore, the General proclaims it at his risk, and under his responsibility both to Government and individuals. When the necessity is apparent, he will meet reward instead of punishment from his Government; and individual claims for damage must be appreciated by the same rule, under the discretion of a jury. Should they, in the opinion of the Government, decide falsely against their officer, they have a right (which they have frequently exercised) of indemnifying him for the disinterested responsibility he has incurred."

2dly. "That the effect of a proclamation of martial law de facto is to bring all persons who may happen to be within the district comprised in the proclamation, under the purview of such law; and therefore all persons capable of defending the country within the district are subject to such law, by virtue of the proclamation, and may be tried during its continuance by virtue thereof."

These are the grounds upon which we place the power of General Jackson to proclaim martial law at New Orleans; and I trust the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BOTTS] will consider his interrogatory fully answered.

Sir, there is another event in the history of our country, in which General Jackson was compelled to assume responsibility, and act from the necessity of the case. I allude to his invasion of Florida, then belonging to the Spanish dominions, and a neutral territory. He reduced St. Mark's, Pensacola, and the fort of Barrancas. This was not authorized by the Constitution or laws; no one ever pretended that the Constitution or laws authorized any such invasion of neutral territory. It was an act of self-defence, forced upon the commander from the necessity of the case. Why this necessity? The Indians were in the daily habit of com. mitting depredations upon our frontier settlements, and retreating with their plunder across the Florida line, a market for which they found among British emissaries stationed at St. Mark's and Pensacola. These emissaries also furnished the Indians with powder and the various implements of war, and continued to stimulate them to increased exertion, and to the perpetration of renewed cruelties upon our defenceless women and children.

Sir, the King of Spain viewed the invasion of Florida as an insult to his sovereignty, and demanded the punishment of General Jackson, as we learn from a letter written by John Q. Adams, then Secretary of State, to George W. Erving, minister plenipotentiary to Spain. I read from that letter as follows: "In the fourth and last of those notes of Mr. Pizarro, he has given formal notices that the King, his master, has issued orders for the suspension of the negotiation between the United States and Spain, until satisfaction shall have been made by the American Government to him for these proceedings of General Jackson, which he considers as acts of unequivocal hostility against him, and as outrages upon his honor and dignity; the only acceptable atonement for which is stated to consist in a disavowal of the acts of the American general thus complained of; the infliction upon him of a suitable punishment for his supposed misconduct, and the restitution of the posts and territories taken by him from the Spanish authorities," &c.

How did Mr. Adams answer this demand of the King of Spain? He tells him, in this same letter, that "the occupation of these places in Spanish Florida by the American commander arose from incidents which occurred in the prosecution of the war against the Indians, from the imminent danger in which the fort of St. Mark's was of being seized by the Indians themselves, and from the manifestations of hostility to the United States by the commandant of St. Mark's, and the Governor of Pensacola; the proofs of which were made known to General Jackson, and impelled him, from the necessities of self-defence, to the steps of which the Spanish Government complains."

These are the grounds as alleged by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. ADAMS,] upon which General Jackson took possession of Spanish Florida. Not because the Constitution or laws of the United States authorized him to enter and occupy a neutral territory, but because he was "impelled from the necessities of self defence" to do so. Now, if General Jackson was authorized upon principles of necessary self-defence to seize upon the fort of St. Mark's, because of the danger of its falling into the hands of the enemy, how much more fully was he justified, by the same principle of imperious necessity, in declaring martial law to save the city of New Orleans from plunder and devastation by the enemy.

It may be supposed that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS] has only stated the grounds upon which General Jackson entered Florida, without approving his action in that particular. Not so. He continues: "But the President will neither inflict punishment nor pass cen sure upon General Jackson for that conduct, the motives for which were founded in the purest patriotism; of the necessities for which he had the most immediate and effectual means of forming a judgment; and the vindication of which is writ ten in every page of the law of nations, as well as the first law of nature-self-defence."

Sir, there is an additional recognition of that paramount law of nature-self-defence-and a power. ful vindication, not only of the acts of General Jackson, in entering the Spanish territory, but of the motives upon which that action was founded. And I now respectfully submit, that every principle involved in the declaration of martial law at New Orleans, was involved in the case thus defended by the gentleman from Massachusetts. Why, then, should the gentleman from Massachusetts, who so ably defended General Jackson nearly thirty years since, now turn round and become his reviler? Sir, I will not say that this change was produced by the result of the political contest of 1828; but I tell the gentleman from Massachusetts that others, with less charity for his motives, will not only think, but declare that such is the fact.

Mr. Speaker, having stated the grounds upon which I place the power of a commanding officer to proclaim martial law, and having brought to my aid the learning and experience of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS] in his better days

27TH CONG....SD SESS.

I shall now proceed to examine into the necessity which actually existed, and induced General Jackson to declare martial law. Permit me to ask what state of things actually existing in a besieged city would justify a proclamation of martial law? The known existence of spies and traitors, or the disaffection of any considerable portion of the resident population of said city, whether citizens, denizens, or aliens, would fully justify the proclaiming of martial law by the commanding general.

Now, sir, upon the actual existence of treason, and the disaffection of a considerable portion of the resident population of New Orleans, I base the necessity of proclaiming martial law. If no treason or disaffection did exist, the act was unnecessary; if treason and disaffection actually existed, a controlling State necessity imperiously demanded the proclamation of martial law; and hence the justification of General Jackson.

Sir, in order to demonstrate the actual existence of treason and disaffection to the American cause, I must avail myself of such lights as history throws upon this subject; and, in every instance in which I refer to history, the enemies, and not the friends of General Jackson will be consulted, because I prefer that his vindication should rest upon hisiorical facts, recorded by those who cannot be charged with leaning to the side of General Jack

son.

We find in Martin's History of Louisiana, that many of the people of that territory were original. ly opposed to the transfer of said territory from France to the United States. He says: vol. 2, page 199, "that the tri-colored made room for the striped banner, under repeated peals of artillery and mus. ketry; a group of citizens of the United States, who stood on the corner of the square, waved their hats in token of respect for their country's flag, and a few of them greeted it with their voices. No emotion was manifested by any other part of the crowd." Again, page 263, Martin says: "Cordero had sent a large reinforcement to Nacogdoches: Porter had not two hundred men under his command on Red river. In a letter to to the Secretary of War of the 15th February, he stated the great disaffection of the people around him-nineteen of whom out of twenty preferred the Government of Spain to that of the United States."

Sir, here is historical evidence that a large proportion of the population of Louisiana were opposed to the authority of the United States; although this fact may not be conclusive as to the actual existence of treason during the investment of New Orleans by the British army, it must nevertheless be taken and considered as a connecting link in the chain of evidence which I shall hereafter adduce upon this point.

I now propose to show, from the same historical evidence, (vol. 2d, page 323,) that treason did actually exist during the investment of the city. It will be remembered that Nicholls, the British colonel, after his arrival at Pensacola, issued a proclamation to the people of Louisiana, in which "he announced that on them the first call was then made to assist in the liberation of their natal soil from a faithless and weak Government. To Spaniards, Frenchmen, Italians, and Englishmen, whether residents or sojourners in Louisiana, application was made for assistance. He gave assurances that the inhabitants had no need to be alarmed at his approach, as the good faith and disinterestedness which Britons had manifested in Europe, would distinguish them in America.

The Indians, he added, had pledged themselves in the most solemu manner to refrain from offering the slightest injury to any but the enemies of their Spanish and British fathers.

"Addressing himself to the people of Kentucky, he observed, they had too long borne with grievous impositions; the whole brunt of the war had fallen on their brave sons. He advised them to be imposed on no longer, but either to revenge themselves under the standard of their forefathers, or observe the strictest neutrality.

"He asked whether the Kentuckians, after the experience of twenty-one years, could longer support those brawlers for liberty, who called it freedom, when themselves were free. He advised them not to be duped any longer, and to accept his offers; assuring them what he had promised he guarantied to them, on the sound honor of a British officer."

Sir, such were the means resorted to, to seduce our people from the allegiance due to their own Government; and I lament, for the honor of man,

Fine on General Jackson-Mr. Payne.

and the dignity of his nature, that any individual could have been found so base, as to aid in the accomplishment of this wicked attempt upon the patriotism of our people. Upon the brave Kentuckians (to their honor be it said) this appeal had no influence; they would neither observe "neutrality," nor "revenge themselves" upon their brothers, under "the standard of their forefathers." Not so with others; for we find (page 327 of Martin's History) that "emissaries were sent with copies of this proclamation over the country, between Mobile river and the Mississippi."

This was the work of treason; and I note the fact, as conclusive evidence of its actual existence at the time. I proceed with my evidence from the same work. On page 340 we find Claiborne, the Governor of Louisiana, saying to General Jackson: "I think, with you, that our country is full of spies and traitors." On page 364 of the same volume, we find that during the engagement between the British and American lines on the 28th December, General Jackson was informed that "the assembly were about to give up the country to the enemy.

All these are important facts, which show the existence of treason in Louisiana, at the time General Jackson proclaimed martial law. It is not my intention, in the charge of treason, to involve the Legislature of Louisiana; but I regret that I have not been able to procure a copy of the journals of that body, since questions may have been started, and propositions entertained, which would go far to relieve the character of General Jackson from the aspersions which Federalism and British influence have at all times cast upon it.

The gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. BorTs,] in commenting upon the order given to Governor Claiborne by General Jackson, to blow up the Legislature of Louisiana, if, in truth, it did contemplate a surrender of the city to the enemy, has said that General Jackson acted upon vague surmise. Sir, the gentleman from Virginia informed us but the other day, that he had never read more than one law book in his life-and that one, twenty years since. Judging from the remark of the gentleman just referred to, we might suppose that he had been equally negligent in omitting to read the history of his country. I make no such charge; we know the gentleman has read the history of his country, and the reasons for this declaration must be sought in other causes.

Mr. BOTTS (Mr. PAYNE yielding for explanation) said that the gentleman from Alabama had misunderstood him on that subject. He had only said that General Jackson had never given his authority, so far as he had been able to ascertain, and he never yet had ascertained; perhaps the gentleman might furnish it.

Mr. PAYNE. Sir, I am proceeding on the supposition that the gentleman had omitted to read the history of the times. I regard this as an important charge against General Jackson; it does him manifest injustice. His vindication may be found in a letter dated 31st December, 1814, in camp, 4 miles below New Orleans, and directed to the Legislature of Louisiana, in which he says:

"The Major General commanding has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the joint resolution of both Houses of the honorable the Legislature of the State of Louisiana, now in session, dated the 30th instant, and communicated to both Houses; to which the General gives the following answer: That, just after the engagement between the British and American armies had commenced, on the 28th instant, when the enemy was advancing, and it was every instant expected they would storm our lines, as the General was riding rapidly from right to left of his line, he was accosted by Mr. Duncan, one of his volunteer aids, who had just returned from New Orleans. Observing him to be apparently agitated, the General stopped, supposing him to be the bearer of some information of the enemy's movements, and asked what was the matter? He replied, that he was the bearer of a message from Governor Claiborne, that the Assembly were about to give up the country to the enemy.

"The General was in the act of pushing forward along the line, when Mr. Duncan called after him, and said: 'the Governor expects orders what to do.' The General replied, that he did not believe the intelligence; but to desire the Governor to make strict inquiry into the subject; and, if true, to blow them up."

Colonel Declouet is stated to be the officer who delivered the message to Mr. Duncan. This is a

H. of Reps.

thorough vindication of General Jackson from the charge of never having given the world his author, as made by the gentleman from Virginia; and Í trust he will now consider me as having furnished the information he desired.

Mr. BOTTS here inquired what history the gentleman read from?

Mr. PAYNE replied, from Martin's History of Louisiana.

Mr. BOTTS said he had never read that book.

Mr. PAYNE. So I had supposed, or the charge would never have been made. If General Jackson had ordered the Legislature of Louisiana to be blown up, upon indefinite rumor, it would have been highly censurable; but the order given in the heat of battle, upon information derived from the Governor, and then with the qualification to "examine strictly" into the subject, and, if true, blow them up, is a very different question. Sir, the order was one that I would not have given, had it been true that the Legislature was about to give up the country to the enemy. Not that they would not have deserved to be blown up, but because I believe gunpowder, under such circumstances, is an improper agent with which to punish traitors. Gunpowder was intended to be used in the adjustment of difficulties between honorable men, or between nations engaged in honorable warfare. The traitor should be punished with the haller, whenever found in either the person of a judge, legislator, private citizen, or common soldier.

Sir, I now turn from this digression to the continued proof of the actual existence of treason when General Jackson proclaimed martial law at New Orleans. I next call the attention of the House to a statement contained in Latour's Memoirs and History of the War in West Florida and Louisiana, who has recorded the names of ten fishermen, of whom he says:

"These were well known to have aided the British in disembarking their troops, serving as pilots on board their vessels and boats, and acting as spies for them, from the period of their arrival on our coast."

"It was their practice, when they came to town to sell their fish, to get all the information they could, for the purpose of carrying it to the English when they went out to fish in Lake Borgne. On the 20th of December-the day preceding the arrival of the detachment of American militia at the villagethe British captain (Peadre) had come disguised, accompanied by the three first-named fishermen, as far as the bank of the Mississippi; and had even tasted its waters. It was from his report, after having thus examined the country, that the enemy determined to penetrate by Viller's canal, whose banks at the time afforded firm footing, from the landing-place in the prairie to the river."

Mr. Speaker, here is conclusive evidence of the actual existence of treason during the investment by the British of the city of New Orleans. In the language of the Governor and General Jackson, the country was "filled with spies and traitors." Mr. MOORE of Louisiana rose to explain.

Mr. PAYNE said he could not yield the floor. Under the rule, he was allowed but one hour to investigate this subject; and for every minute of that time he should have important use. Besides, the gentleman from Louisiana could reply when he had finished his remarks.

The

Sir, I have now fully made out my case. actual existence of treason is proved beyond all question. Hence the absolute necessity of proclaiming martial law; and upon that necessity I place the justification of General Jackson. How could the city have been saved? how could the spies and traitors have been prevented from conveying to the enemy daily information of the strength, condition, and operations of the American army? Sir, in but one way. It could only be done by proclaiming martial law. General Jackson saw and knew this. He felt the responsibility resting upon him, and adopted the only possible means by which the city could be saved. He proclaimed martial law, and subjected the city of New Orleans to military government. He garrisoned every avenue leading to and from the city, and thereby cut off all communication between the traitors within and the enemy without. Now, sir, what effect has martial law upon persons within the district comprised in the proclamation? I agree with Mr. Livingston in the opinion already quoted: "That the effect of martial law, de facto, is to bring all persons who may happen to be within the dis

27TH CONG.... 3D SESS.

trict comprised in the proclamation, under the purview of such law; and, therefore, all persons capable of defending the country within the district, are subject to such law by virtue of the proclamation, and may be tried, during its continuance, by virtue thereof."

Louallier, a naturalized Fenchman, and member of the Senate of Louisiana, presuming upon the dignity of his station, wrote and published a seditious paper, which was calculated not only to embolden the treasonable portion of the population of Louisiana, but informed the enemy of the divisions and dissatisfaction actually existing in regard to the measures adopted by the commanding general. For writing and publishing this paper, he was arrested, by the order of General Jackson. Dominic A. Hall then issued a writ of habeas corpus for the release of Louallier, and thereby became his accomplice. Hall was also arrested. Louallier was tried and acquitted by a court-martial; and Hall, after a few days' confinement, was sent beyond the limits of the city, and released. If there was necessity for proclaiming martial law at all, the same necessity required that it should be preserved. Hence the necessity for the immediate arrest of Louallier. Nor could he be released under a writ of habeas corpus; for that would have been a virtual repeal of the proclamation, before the necessity ended which required its existence. Moreover, I do not believe that it would be consistent with the public safety to admit the doctrine, that a man writing and publishing a mutinous and seditious paper, in the midst of a military camp, can be taken from the military by the civil authority, by writ of habeas corpus, and discharged. If that doctrine be once established, the spy or the traitor may at any time find exemption from the punishment due to his crimes, under the soiled ermine of some foreign stipendiary, exercising judicial functions under the authority of the United States.

Sir, I have said that New Orleans was placed under garrison, and subjected to all the laws which govern a military camp, by virtue of the proclamation of martial law. I now ask, did Gen. Jackson commit any act, after the proclamation, which every commander has not a right to do, at any time, within the limits of his encampment? Upon this point, I read an argument, the other day, in the January number of the Democratic Review, which was so conclusive, and the impressions of which are now so vivid upon my recollection, that it would be impossible for me to make an argument upon this branch of the subject, without plagiarizing the one to which I have adverted. I therefore ask leave to read to the House this argument, and to substitute it for the remarks I intended to make.

"Many Frenchmen born, for the purpose of securing exemption from military duty, procured certificates from the French consul, declaring them to be subjects of the King of France. These certificates were given in the midst of the General's camp, and tended to weaken his means of defence, by taking effective soldiers from his ranks, and producing dissatisfaction and a spirit of mutiny among those who remained. Might not the General, in strict conformity of law, have placed both the consul and his protegés in confinement? He adopted the milder expedient of ordering them out of his camp.

"Then came the publication of Louallier, harshly censuring this order as an act of tyranny, and openly advising disobedience. This publication, be it remembered, was made in the midst of the camp. Its direct and manifest object was to bring the military authority into contempt.

"The arrest of the author was, in our view of the General's lawful authority over his camp, not only a matter of right, but of indispensable duty. Instead of violating the Constitution and laws of his country, he but performed the solemn obligation of executing them, by preserving the just authority of its military commander over its armies and their encampments.

"Yet it was for this act that Judge Hall (himself, at the moment, the subject of martial law, and abiding in the midst of the camp) issued his writ of habeas corpus. This was making himself the accomplice of Louallier, in stirring up discontent and mutiny in the camp. The same principles which required the arrest of the one, demanded, with a louder voice, the restraint of the other. The Judge was kept under guard a few days, and then sent out of the camp, and set at liberty.

Fine on General Jackson-Mr. Payne.

"The power of the General, under martial law, seems to be altogether preventive, except in cases where the law itself provides for punishment. In this case, it seems to us that the preventive power can only be exercised by keeping the mischiefmaker in confinement, or sending him beyond the limits of the camp. In effect, this was the result in the case of Louallier, and nothing beyond it was attempted in the case of Judge Hall.

"These facts and reasons lead us to the conclusion, that, in ordering French aliens and the French consul beyond the limits of his camp; in arresting and confining Louallier for an open attempt, within his camp, to produce discontent and disobedience; and in confining and sending out of his camp Judge Hall, for attempting to sustain Louallier-General Jackson trampled on no constitution, and violated no law; but, on the contrary, faithfully executed the powers vested in him by the Constitution and laws, as a military commander, for the preservation of order in his camp, the safety of his army, and the defence of his country."

Sir, if the views taken be correct, the blame, if any, which attaches to General Jackson, was for proclaiming martial law, and not for acts committed by him subsequent to that proclamation. When upon that branch of the subject, I demonstrated beyond doubt that an overruling State necessity, resulting from the conduct of the spies and traitors known to be in the country, required the existence of martial law to save the city from the enemy; and upon that necessity I rest the justification of General Jackson, and demand, as an act of justice, that the fine imposed upon him by Judge Hall be refunded by the passage of the bill now under consideration.

Sir, it may be asked, could this city have been saved by any other means? This interrogatory requires that I should examine, for a few moments, the means of defence, as compared with the means of attack. I have already said that we were called upon to defend a restless and divided people. Our army numbered about 3,000 men, undisciplined; many of them had never before faced an enemy, and withal badly armed. What were the means of attack? An army of 14,000 strong, well ordered, provided with all the appliances of war, and from a country whose troops had been disciplined by a war of twenty years' duration, and commanded by the most experienced generals of the

age.

The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. CUSHING] eloquently said, the other day, that, if we would look at the history of England during the period of the French revolution, and mark the course of that great power in Asia, in Africa, and in Europe, we would find it one undeviating course of unchecked victory and glory; or, if we turn to the ocean, we are met by the victories of St. Vincent, of Trafalgar, of Copenhagen, and the Nile; and, wherever a British ship met an opposing vessel, it added a new halo of glory to the conquering cross of St. George.

Sir, what was the condition of that gigantic nation at that time? She could concentrate her whole power upon us; she feared no invasion from France; the power of Napoleon had been wrenched from its basis; his star of glory had set; its sickly and ominous glare had been extinguished upon the plains of Belgium. Nor did she fear an insurrection in Ireland; the altars reared to liberty by that gallant people had been cloven down, and the fires which burnt upon those altars had been extinguished by the blood of Emmett. Thus we were contending with a nation which had torn the diadem from the brow of the hero of Austerlitz, and shook asunder the confederation of the Rhine. Sir, we met them upon the plains of New Orleans, and the Anglo Irish blood-the Andrew-Jackson blood -snatched the American eagle from the fangs of the British lion, and enabled her to unfurl her wings in proud triumph over American arms and American soil. Could this have been done without the proclamation of martial law? No, sir; never. Three thousand Americans could never have resisted successfully a British army of fourteen thousand men, with all the points of attack designated by the spies and traitors known to be in New Orleans. Assuming this to be the fact, I ask, was it just, was it patriotic, to impose a fine upon its defender, its preserver? The whole American people will answer no; and, in their name, I demand that the fine be refunded-not as a pecuniary remuneration; no, sir, as such, we would not receive it;

H. of Reps.

but as a vindication-a legislative vindication by an American Congress of the reputation of Gen. Jackson from the aspersions with which British influence then, and Federalism, its twin sister, now seeks to assail it.

Sir, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Borrs] tells us that the fine imposed by Judge Hall upon General Jackson has been refunded. By whom, sir? The ladies of New Orleans. Suppose this were true, and that General Jackson had actually pocketed the money subscribed by the patriotic ladies of that city: would that justify this Government in retaining in its treasury money which had been improperly wrenched from the hands of a public servant? No, sir, if the facts, as already stated, were true, and it were improper to refund the money to General Jackson, it should have been handed over to the ladies of New Orleans, whose patriotic zeal outstripped the Government in the desire of protecting a public officer in the discharge of his military duty. I say this fine of $1,000 got into the public treasury wrongfully; and having done so, as a mere question of honesty, it should not remain there.

But, sir, what are the facts of this case? When Judge Hall imposed this fine upon General Jackson, it was immediately paid by him. The ladies of New Orleans, feeling deeply the injustice of Hall's conduct, by subscription of $1 each, raised the amount of the fine imposed, and tendered it to General Jackson; who immediately saw the impossibility of returning the money to those by whom it had been subscribed, and for this reason expressed a wish to those who had the money that it should be distributed among the families of the brave men who lost their lives in the defence

of these very ladies. What other disposition, respectful to these ladies and just to himself, could General Jackson have suggested? To have refused it indignantly, would have been unjust to the motives of those by whom it was tendered; and yet, to receive it as a pecuniary indemnity was impossible, so long as he continued to be Andrew Jackson. Sir, the opponents of this measure must be hard pressed for argument to plead these facts in bar of even a pecuniary claim upon the treasury.

Will it be contended that we have not the constitutional power to refund this money? By those, at least, who voted to the widow of General Harrison an appropriation of $25,000, such an objection cannot be urged. I did not vote for that appropriation; it was a gratuity, and I believe this Government has no right, under the Constitution, to bestow gratuities from the public treasury. But here is a different case. You have in your treasury the money of a private individual, unjustly obtained; and there can be no want of power to restore it to the proper owner. Suppose you refuse to do justice, by failing to refund this fine to General Jackson, what will the people say?

son.

Sir, they know that you have already passed a bill for the relief of the heirs of Hull, who surren dered an army under circumstances which excited the strongest suspicions that he was guilty of treaThe people also know that the Senate passed a bill at the late session, (and many of the members of this House were anxious for the passage of the same bill,) to pay the Massachusetts militia, not for fighting the battles of the country, but for refusing to march over the Canada line with the view of aitacking the enemy.

Now, sir, after all this, if you refuse to refund the fine unjustly imposed upon General Jackson, who preserved his army, prevented a city from be ing sacked, and was himself the victor of many battles, the people will denounce this Congress as the most unjust and factious body of men ever as sembled under the Federal Constitution.

Sir, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS] insidiously introduced in the debate upon this question, the name of Arnold, the traitor-for his own amusement, I suppose, but to the evident mor tification of the House. He said that Arnold asked an American in Europe, what the people of the United States would do with him if in their pos session? The American replied, that they woul bury the leg wounded in defence of his country, with the "honors of war," and hang the rest of his body for his treason.

Sir, the application of this anecdote to General Jackson, and the connexion of his name with the name of a traitor, is extremely unjust. That dis tinguished patriot holds no communion either with the "overt" traitor, or with him who only meditates

27TH CONG..... 3D SESS.

the act; he is reviled by the one, as he would be feared and shunned by the other. And I tell the gentleman from Massachusetts, that the point of this anecdote, if it has any, is applicable to himself and his friends, who have already shown their friendship for Hull and the Massachusetts militia, and their increasing and deadly hostility to Andrew Jackson. Judging from these facts, and the indications already given by the votes of this House, if Arnold were now before this Congress, his body would be pensioned for military services to Federalism in the attempted betrayal of his country, and the leg mutilated in the service of that conntry would be hang for its treason. I am now done with the question of the fine.

Sir, the remaining moments of my hour I must devote to the notice of a remark which fell from the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. BOTTS,] who tells us that he has been enabled to discover but one green spot in the life of General Jackson, and that was his submission to the decision of Judge Hall in the imposition of this fine. Sir, but one green spot in the life of Andrew Jackson! I go back to his boyhood: when he was a British prisoner during the revolutionary war, he was insolently ordered by a British officer "to black his boots." Did Andrew Jackson obey this order with the servile acquiescence common to his years and situation? No, sir; he positively refused to obey, claimed the treatment due to a prisoner of war, and, although an only brother was sacrificed and fell by his side from the cruelty of his oppressor, Andrew Jackson could not be driven from his position, or forced to submit to the arrogance of his tyrant. Was this no green spot in the life of Andrew Jackson? I come down to the history of the last war. What was the condition of your country then? The cities upon your coast had been sacked; your country overrun; and a hostile flag waved in proud triumph from the walls of this Capitol. Go to the West: the tide of victory had spread over the upper valley of the Mississippi; your "stripes and stars" trailed in the dust; your national glory lost; the massacre of the river Raisin and the defeat of Dudley hung heavily upon every mind; Kentucky mourned the loss of her bravest sons, whose bones, denied the right of sepulture, were then bleached and whitening upon the battlefield of disaster. At this, the darkest period of our national history, Andrew Jackson was appointed to the command of the American army. The effect was like magic: hope revived; patriotism rekindled; confidence was restored. Our stars and stripes again floated in the breeze; the current of disaster was checked; the wave of victory rolled back; and battle after battle won in quick succession, until the war was ended in the blaze of glory at New Orleans, to which I have already adverted.

Was there no green spot in the life of Andrew Jackson resulting from all this? Do the battles of Emuckfau, Taladega, Enotochopco, and the Horseshoe, form no green spots in the life of Andrew Jackson? Sir, it will require no storied urn to commemorate the deeds of that illustrious man. They are recorded upon every page of his country's history. Nor will it require monumental columns to mark the spot in which his ashes shall be deposited. The laurel will continue to bloom upon his grave, bedewed by the tears of a grateful nation, when the deeds and the graves of those who revile him will be forgotten and buried beneath the rubbish of oblivion.

Mr. PAYNE was here interrupted by the expiration of his hour.

SPEECH OF MR. REYNOLDS,

OF ILLINOIS.

In the House of Representatives, February 2, 1843-On the appropriation to improve the upper and lower rapids in the Mississippi river.

Mr. CHAIRMAN: This improvement is not sectional. It is not Western or Eastern; but it is national. It is a great work in which the whole nation is interested. The great loss of property which occurs on the Mississippi every year is a destruction, to that amount, of the national wealth. The whole nation may be considered a partnership firm, organized to promote the prosperity and happiness of the whole concern; and a loss of property, no matter in whose hands the loss may happen, and no matter in what section of the Union it may take place--in Maine or Iowa-yet it is still a loss to the whole partnership-to the whole nation.

Although the Mississippi may flow through the

Western valley, and be removed from Maine many thousand miles, yet that State is deeply interested in the prosperity of the commerce of the Mississippi. This is the case with every State in the Union. And all are deeply interested in this great national improvement. Do we not see presented to Congress great numbers of petitions from the Atlantic States, praying the improvement of the navigation on the Mississippi? Those petitions are sigued by intelligent citizens of the Eastern and Middle States, who are celebrated for their acute feelings of friendship to their pockets; and, there. fore, feel a lively interest in this subject.

But, Mr. Chairman, we have the old objection raised by Southern gentlemen, that these improvements are not warranted by the Constitution. It is alleged, that to improve the Mississippi, is a violation of the Constitution of the United States. When will these exploded objections cease?

These objections to this improvement remind me of the sentiments of the honorable Mr. Robison, a member of Congress from Virginia, expressed, under the solemn and awful approach of death. The story is: "that Mr. Robison, in Washington city, late at night, rose in his bed, expecting to die in a short time, and told his room-mate not to permit him to be buried by Congress, as it was unconstitutional to bury a member of Congress at the public expense."

This is carrying the doctrine beyond ultraism. I apprehend it is too late at this day to adjust and settle the construction of the Constitution on this subject. All the Presidents, since the formation of our Government, have signed bills of the character of that which is now before the committee; and, of necessity, every Congress must have passed them. Many of the same individuals who were in the convention that framed the Constitution, were also in the Congresses that passed these bills. And who could be more competent to give to the Constitution a proper construction than the very same men who made it? These individuals, justly famed for their virtue and wisdom, and who may be emphatically called "the fathers of the Republic," enacted laws of the same character as the bill now under discussion. To enable the National Government to "regulate commerce" was one of the main reasons which induced the people to form the Constitution of the United States. And to establish light-houses, improve harbors on the ocean, make surveys of the coast, &c., &c., has always been considered within the constitutional power of Congress.

The Mississippi may be considered the high sea for the commerce of the West; and although the river water is fresh, and has not the regular tides of the ocean in it, yet the Constitution must have the same application to it that it has to the Atlantic, as to commerce. Therefore improvements within this river must fall within the same class of cases as the establishment of light-houses, coast surveys, harbors, &c., &c., on the Atlantic.

Mr. Chairman, we hear constitutional objections raised, on a most every occasion, against bills that come before Congress. These objections generally proceed from the South; and are so common, that they bring to my recollection an anecdote which happened in Kentucky An old farmer went out back of his field, into the timber, with his gun, to shoot squirrels. The old man remained out some considerable time, and continued loading and shooting incessantly all the time. His son thought strange of it, and went out to see why it was his father kept up such continual shooting. On inquiry, the old man showed his son the squirrel he was shooting at still on the tree, and in the same place. The boy saw no squirrel on the tree; but, looking at his father, he saw a mote in the old man's eyebrow, which his father-with his anxiety in looking up in the tree-had construed to be a squirrel, and had been shooting at it all day. Thus it is with these gentlemen. They have motes in their eyebrows, which they magnity, not into squirrels, but into breaches of the Constitution, at which they are eternally shooting.

I am, myself, in favor of a limited construction of the Constitution; extending it to embrace nothing by implication. But, on the other hand, I am not disposed to cripple and cramp it, or to pervert it from its original design. There can exist no doubt in my mind but the improvement of the Mississippi river is such a national work as is clearly embraced within the constitutional action of Congress. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me to be necessary, controversy, to improve the navigation

beyond

all

H. of Reps.

of the Mississippi, and thereby save the lives and property that are destroyed on it every year.

li will be seen, by the census returns for 1840, that there are between six and seven millions of people who inhabit the Mississippi valley; and they produce annually, by agriculture alone, more than five hundred millions of dollars. This great amount of population, and great agricultural production each year, will satisfy every one of the business and importance of the Western country.

This section, in population, is greater than onethird of the whole Confederacy; and I presume the same may be said of its productions and wealth. And I would not be astonished that more than half of the wealth which is exported out of the whole Union, proceeds from the valley of the Mississippi.

These statements will appear satisfactory, when the extent of country and fertility of soil are considered. The climate is various from one extreme to the other; so that almost all productions can be cultivated in the West with great profit. I may moreover add, that the whole valley of the Mississippi is inhabited by an intelligent and energetic race of men. The inhabitants are not crowded together in large cities, or in dense settlements, to be enervated and corrupted by such a condition; but they possess youthful vigor and industry, in proportion to the age of their country and with such a character, and in such a country, the productive wealth of the West must be considerable.

What would all this enterprising and laborious population do in the West, were it not for the Mississippi? Of what avail would be all the surplus productions, if no cheap conveyance could be had to market? Were it not for the navigation of the Mississippi and its tributaries, the surplus products of the valley would rot on the hands of the farmers; and thereby the enterprise and spirit which now enliven and animate the population would absolutely cease to exist.

The navigation of the Mississippi and its tributaries being so vastly important to the people, is it not reasonable that they would use it to the utmost extent of their abilities? The daring and enterprising spirit of the people indicates that they know well their interest, and will in the same proportion pursue it.

Almost the whole surplus productions of the West are, at some time before they reach their destination, floated on the Mississippi; and the wealth which is received in return is conveyed back by the same channel. I presume that all the wealth which is exported and imported on this river would amount, annually, to more than two hundred and fifty millions of dollars.

Taking all these views into consideration, I hesitate not to say that there is more wealthy commercial business transacted on the Mississippi than on any other liver in America. It must be remembered that this river is more than three thousand miles in length; and every mile of it is navigated, more or less. It is true, not much business is as yet transacted towards its sources; but, when it flows into the Southern climate, a commerce of great wealth and importance is carried on, through this channel, to the ocean. Many intelligent gentlemen consider that double as much business is done on this river as on any other in the Union; and, in fact, some say three times as much is done on it as on any other river in America.

I presume the river that comes nearest to the Mississippi in wealthy commerce, is the Hudson, in the State of New York. In making this comparison, I consider the Hudson as ending at the city of New York, and the Mississippi at New Orleans. The length of the Hudson cannot be compared with the other; and, although much wealth may pour into the Hudson from the New York canal, and from the State, yet it cannot, in my opinion, be compared with the vast country bordering the Mississippi, and the corresponding wealth that is shipped on that river.

Mr. Chairman, I pretend not that all this wealth which is shipped on the Mississippi crosses the two rapids (which are called the Des Moines and Rock River rapids) mentioned in the amendment before the committee; yet, nevertheless, the commerce of a great and a growing country is shipped over these obstructions. All the Iowa Territory is dependent on the Mississippi for almost all its commerce. Its surplus produce exported, and merchandise imported, are shipped on this river, and

7TH CONG....3D SESS.

must pass one or both of these rapids. The western portion of Wisconsin Territory is in the same situation; and so is the northwest section of Illinois. The country above these obstructions, and adjacent to the river, is growing fast, and is carrying on considerable business on the river at present. The lead from this region that is shipped over these rapids amounts, during the year, to millions and millions of pounds. The furs from the sources of the Mississippi and St. Peter's, that descend the river, are also considerable. The farmers, whose industry has so rapidly improved the country, export great quantities of their surplus crops over these obstructions; and the lumber, from the prairies between the Mississippi and Lake Superior, constitutes an article of considerable commerce, which is also compelled to pass these rapids to find a market.

The most careless observer of the Western country must be forced to believe that the commerce on the Mississippi is at present of vast importance to the whole Union, and is increasing with the same unparalleled rapidity as the country is improving.

Mr. Chairman, the great loss of property and destruction of boats on the Mississippi have become so well known all over the Union, and so much has been written and spoken on the occasion, that it would be idle and useless for me to attempt to portray these horrid scenes. Every traveller on the Mississippi is compelled to become a witness to the fact. The hulls and wrecks of boats are so common in some parts of the river, that a person would suppose that some horrible fatality had destroyed all that approached the ill-fated spot. A location of this character on the Mississippi, a few miles above the mouth of the Ohio, has become celebrated throughout the West, and is known as the "Boat Grave-Yard." This is the grave-yard where the finest steamboats that ever sailed on the Western waters, with their valuable cargoes, were wrecked and lost; and in this vicinity the steamboat Eliza was sunk, and with her, also, perished fifty or sixty persons. Capt. Littleton, the commander and owner of the Eliza, not only lost his vessel, but in the confusion, at night, his wife and children also perished with the boat. Besides the valuable lives lost on this river, more than three millions and a half of property, within two or three years, have been destroyed and lost, not only to the immediate owners, but lost, also, to the nation. These losses and destruction of property have not been done in a corner, or in the dark. They all occurred in the most public thoroughfare in the Union, and are known more or less to every man in the nation.

Mr. Chairman, these facts being known to Congress, will it not compel this body to improve the river to prevent similar losses? Is it not a duty the nation owe the people of the West to improve this great national highway? It is economy in the highest degree to make this improvement. If it were not for the purposes of economy, I would not urge this subject on the consideration of Congress. It is to expend a small sum, to save a very great one to the people. Is it not economy for man to provide himself support, rather than to die? Who would die rather than to spend a few cents each day to sustain life? And I might ask, with the same reason, who would not spend a few cents on the improvement of the Mississippi, rather than to permit millions of dollars and valuable lives to be lost? Who can compare money to life? All these improvements are easily made. A small sum annually expended will remove the snags from the Mississippi, and render a safe navigation over the rapids of Des Moines and Rock river, which are mentioned in the amendment now before the com

mittee.

The low state of the treasury cannot be urged against this improvement, as it is a measure of economy, and will directly advance the public interest. Because a man is poor, should he cease to eat? The improvement of the Mississippi is almost as essential to commerce as eating is to an animal. There is no improvement in all this extended confederacy so essential to commerce as the improvement of this river. This work, carried out to a reasonable extent, will save more lives and more wealth than any other improvement in America. Admitting the treasury to be almost empty, the country is wealthy, and full of resources. No famine, pestilence, or war, has visited the people; all are vigorous and industrious. It is no excuse that the treasury is not overflowing, that this improvement should not be made. Can we stop the commerce on the river, or prevent the loss of

In the House of Representatives, February 4, 1843--On his motion to reduce the pay of the navy twenty per cent.

Mr. MERIWETHER said that it was from no hostility to the service that he desired to reduce the pay of the navy. It had been increased in 1835 to meet the increase of labor elsewhere, &c; and a decline having taken place there, he thought a corresponding decline should take place in the price of labor in the navy.

At the last session of Congress, this House called on the Secretary of the Navy for a statement of the pay allowed each officer previous to the act of 1835. From the answer to that resolution, Mr. M. derived the facts which he should state to the House. He was desirous of getting the exact amount received by each grade of officers, to show the precise increase by the act of 1835. Aided by that report, the Biennial Register of 1822, and the report of the Secretary of the Navy for 1822, furnishing the estimates for the "full pay and full rations" of each grade of officers, he was enabled to present the entire facts accurately.

Previous to that time, the classification of officers was different from what it has been since; but, as far as like services have been rendered under each classification, the comparative pay is presented under each.

Previous to 1835, the pay of the "commanding officer of the navy" was $100 per month, and sixteen rations per day, valued at 25 cents each ration; which amounted, "full pay and full rations," to $2,660 per annum. The same officer as senior captain in service receives now $4,500; while "on leave," he receives $3,500 per annum.

Before 1835, a "captain commanding a squadron" received the same pay as the commanding of ficer of the navy, and the same rations; amounting, in all, to $2,660; that same officer, exercising the same command, receives now $4,000.

Before 1835, a captain commanding a vessel of 32 guns and upwards, received $100 per month and eight rations per day-being a total of $1,930 per annum; a captain commanding a vessel of 20 and under 32 guns, received $75 per month and six rations per day-amounting to $1,447 50 per annum. Since 1835, these same captains, when performing these same duties, receive $3,500; and when at home, by their firesides, "waiting orders," receive $2,500 per annum.

Before 1835, a "master commanding" received $60 per month and five rations per day-amounting to $1,176 per annum. Since that time, the same officer, in sea service, receives $2,500 per annum; at other duty, $2,100 per annum; and "waiting orders," $1,800 per annum.

Before 1835, a "lieutenant commanding" received $50 per month and four rations per day; which amounted to $965 per annum. Since that time, the same officer receives, for similar services, $1,800 per annum.

Before 1835, a lieutenant on other duty received $40 per month and three rations per day-amounting to $761 per annum. Since that time, for the same services, that same officer has received $1,500 per annum; and when "waiting orders," $1,200 per

annum.

Before 1835, a midshipman received $19 per month and one ration per day-making $319 25 per annum. Since that time, a passed midshipman on duty received $750 per annum; if "waiting orders," $600; a midshipman received, in sea service, $100; on other duty, $350; and "waiting orders," $300 per annum.

Surgeons, before 1835, received $50 per month and two rations per day-amounting to $787 50;

H. of Reps.

they now receive from $1,000 to $2,700 per an

num.

Before 1835, a "schoolmaster" received $25 per month and two rations per day; now, under the name of a professor, he receives $1,200 per annum.

Before 1835, a carpenter, boatswain, and gunner received $20 per month and two rations per daymaking $427 50 each per annum; they now receive, if employed on a ship-of the-line, $750, on a frigate $600, on other duty $500, and "waiting orders" $360 per annum. A similar increase has been made in the pay of all other officers. The pay of seamen has not been enlarged, and it is proposed to leave it as it is. In several instances, an officer idle, "waiting orders," receives more pay now than one of similar grade received during the late war, when he exposed his life in battle in defence of his country. At the navy-yards the pay of officers was greater than at sea. Before 1835, a captain commandant received for pay, rations, candles, and servants' hire, $3,013 per annum, be sides fuel; the same officer, for the same services, receives now $3,500 per annum.

A master commandant received $1,408 per annum, with fuel; the same officer now receives $2,100 per annum. A lieutenant received $877, with fuel; the same officer receives now $1,500.

At naval stations, before the act of 1835, a captain received $2,660 per annum; he now receives $3,500 per annum. A lieutenant received $761 per annum, and he now receives $1,500 per annum. Before and since the act of 1835, quarters were furnished the officers at navy yards and stations. Before that time, the pay and emolu. ments were estimated for in dollars and cents, and appropriated for as pay; and the foregoing statements are taken from the actual "estimates" of the Navy Department, and, as such, show the whole pay and emoluments received by each officer.

The effect of this increase of pay has been realized prejudicially in more ways than one. In the year 1824, there were afloat, in the navy, 404 guns; in 1843, 946 guns. The cost of the item of pay alone for each gun, then, was $2,360; now, the cost is $3,500.

The naval service has become, to a great extent, one of ease and of idleness. The high pay has rendered its offices mostly sinecures; hence the great effort to increase the number of officers. Every argument has been used, every entreaty resorted to, to augment that corps. We have seen the effect of this, that in one year (1841) there were added 13 captains, 41 commanders, 42 lieutenants, and 163 midshipmen, without any possibly conceiv able cause for the increase; and when, at the same time, these appointments were made, there were 20 captains "waiting orders," and 6 "on leave;" 26 commanders "waiting orders," and 3 "on leave;" 103 lieutenants "on leave and waiting orders," and 16 midshipmen "on leave and waiting orders." The pay of officers "waiting orders" amounted, during the year 1841, to $261,000; and now the amount required for the pay of that same idle corps, increased by a useless and unnecessary increase of the navy, is $395,000! It is a fact worthy of notice, that, under the old pay in 1824, there were 28 captains, 4 of whom were "waiting orders," of 30 commanders, only 7 were "waiting orders." Un der the new pay, in 1843, there are 68 captains, of whom 38 are "waiting orders;" 97 commanders, of whom 57 are "waiting orders and on leave."

The item of pay, in 1841, amounted to $2,335,000, and we are asked to appropriate for the next twelve months $3,333,139. To give employment to as many officers as possible, it is proposed to extend greatly our naval force; increasing the number of our vessels in commission largely, and upon every station, notwithstanding our commerce is reduced, and we are at peace with all the world, and have actually purchased our peace from the only nation from which we apprehended difficulty.

It was stated somewhere, in some of the reports, that the appropriation necessary to defray the expenses of courts-martial in the navy would be, this year, $50,000. This was a very large amount, when contrasted with the service. The disorderly con duct of the navy was notorious-no one could defend it. The country was losing confidence in it daily, and becoming more unwilling to bear the burdens of taxation to foster or sustain it. A few years since, its expenditures did not exceed four millions and a half: they are now up to near eight millions of dollars. Its expense is greater now than during the late war with England. Notwith standing the unequivocal declarations of Congress,