27TH CONG....3D SESS.

monious? Let it come out-publish all. Sir, I call again-distinctly, emphatically call upon Northern Democrats to rise now in their places and declare, if they can, that the testimony of their party leaders from South Carolina-one from Alabama--one from Virginia-one from Pennsylvania-and three from New York, is untrue. Dare you do it now-here in your places? Your leader [Mr. CALHOUN] has said that the "whole Democratic party have rallied to the standard of free trade." Dare you say it is false? If so, rise and pronounce the word. Gentlemen are silent! and that silence eloquently admits the truth of their great leader's declaration, while they have not the courage to avow it in terms. Let it go to the North that the Representatives of that section of the Union are for the doctrine of free trade while here; and by the North, disgraced by the duplicity of their agents, let the rebuke be administered to them.

I call upon a gentleman from New York now in my eye-the Representative of the district of Mr. Van Buren's residence, [Mr. MCCLELLAN]-to tell this House whether he constitutes one of the "whole Democratic party"-whether he is an advocate for free trade?

Mr. MCCLELLAN. I will respond to the inquiry. If the gentleman means, by free trade, low duties

Mr. WHITE. I do not yield the floor to the gentleman to make a speech. I ask him a plain question; and before he answers, he requires me to explain the meaning of one of the cardinal principles of his party.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. If the gentleman means

Mr. WHITE. I mean nothing about the principle. I ask you a simple question. Will you answer, yes or no? The gentleman declines the answer! I thought it would be thus.

Let us now look to the operation of this principle when reduced to practice. The term free trade defines its own meaning: it is a trade free from all legislative restraints, and left to the control of its own laws. If the taxing power of this Government be applied to it, and it is compelled to pay contributions for its license, it is no longer a free, but a restrained trade. To be free, it must not be subjected to duties, and must be chargeable with the payment of no revenue to the Government. In short, the Government must be left without revenue, or resort to direct taxation to procure it, if this policy prevails. If this theory were established in practice, what think you, sir, each State would be bound to contribute by direct taxation as its portion of the Federal revenue? I have been curious enough to make the calculation upon the returns of the last census, assuming $28,500,000 as the amount of annual expenditure an amount far below that required by the Secretary of the Treasury in his report-and assuming federal numbers as the basis of taxation. The account would stand thus:

1,114 040 584,140 139,390 In the calculation which I have made, to avoid placing too high the ratable proportions of the slaveholding States, I have assumed for each that the voting population are the tax-payers; which is, in effect,

rue.

It may be that many voters do not pay taxes; but the deficiency is fully, if not more than supplied by taxes paid by widows, the guardians of minor children, and foreigners who have estates in land. Could New York pay this sum of $4,857,840 annually? The statement of the amount is a sufficient reply.

During the late fall election in that State, the party leaders were rampant at the thought of Whig ascendency and a "forty million debt;" and their stump and caucus orators, in doleful strains, besought the people to restore the State Government to the keeping of the Democracy, because Whig mismanagement had imposed upon them a direct tax of about six hundred thousand dollars, which they were unable to pay. The Government was

Naval Appropriation Bill--Mr. J. L White.

restored to them; and how do they propose to alleviate or remove this popular burden of a six hundred thousand dollars direct tax? By free trade. In other words, as the people of the State of New York cannot pay the sum of six hundred thousand dollars annually, without great inconvenience, if they can ever pay it at all, Democracy proposes to relieve them of the inconvenience or inability by exacting annually an additional sum of FOUR MIL

LION EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIFTY-SEVEN THOUSAND

FIGHT HUNDRED AND FORTY DOLLARS by direct taxation for Federal uses. A New York city member informed us a short time since that his was the "progressive or improvement party," and that ours is the "stand-still party." I do not now stop to controvert his position; but, for myself, sir, I would rather always remain in that condition of blissful ignorance to which the gentleman has consigned me, than to purchase progression or improvement at the enormous price of public misery and ruin which must be paid for it. I would rather forever "stand still" than to "progress," when each advancing step must tread upon the prostrate interests and the crushed and despairing hopes of a nation. No, sir; I desire no party improvement, or party progression, if it must be based upon public wretchedness.

And

I turn now to examine the blessings in reserve for my own State under this financial policy of "free trade and direct taxation." The gentleman who last addressed the House [Mr. HOLMES] thought proper to indulge in many censorious commentaries upon the conduct of Western members in endeavoring to withhold large appropriations for the navy; and he invoked the liberality of our patriotism to sustain in future that branch of the national service. Strange invocation from a strange quarter! How many times and for how many years has the West appealed to the gentleman, nay, to the whole school of "strict-construction" politicians-master and disciples-to give us appropriations to improve the navigation of the Western rivers? And how often have those appeals been burdened with minute specifications of the loss of property and human life, in consequence of appropriations being refused? How often have they been implored to vote money to continue the Cumberland road-a great national thoroughfare, which has peopled the wilderness and brought untold millions into your treasury? what answer has been given to those appeals and invocations? "The appropriation is unconstitutional." This is the unvarying and eternal response. In their estimation, the Constitution is general in theory-local in practice. It was made exclusively for that portion of the Union lying east of the Alleghanies, and most especially for South Carolina, to which State alone belongs the right of interpreting its provisions! Appropriations for harbors, light-houses, buoys, dry-docks, fortifications, arsenals, armories, are tolerated by the Constitution, under a South Carolina construction; but an appropriation for Western rivers, upon whose bosoms float one-half the agricultural wealth of this nation, and by means of which more than one-half of the internal commerce of the country is carried on,—such an appropriation is forbidden by the Constitution! And thus it is that the gentleman, by the aid of "strict construction," refuses to us all benefit of part or lot in the appropriations made by this Government; and yet he cannot understand the motive which influences Western members to vote against large appropriations for expenditure upon the seaboard. Let me explain to him the position of my State, and he will sufficiently understand the motives which govern its Representatives upon all questions of appropriation.

Since Indiana was admitted into the Union as a State, she has paid into the national treasury nearly $16,000,000, proceeds of the public lands sold within her limits. This amount has been expended somewhere, but none of it has found its way back again to the State by which it was paid. South Carolina has had her share of it.

H. of Reps.

by our merchants in the Eastern cities and consumed within my State. In this case, as it ever will be in all others where pecuniary loss must be sustained in consequence of the derangement of currency and exchange, mercantile sagacity throws that loss off the shoulders of dealers to those of consumers. This annual burden is imposed upon us because "strict construction" has withheld a charter for a national bank; and patiently have we paid the yearly contribution for South Carolina interpretation of a Constitution not made for us; and pay it we ever must while the star of "Democracy" is in the ascendant. I will state the annual account between Indiana and the General Government.

Government of the United States to Indiana, DR.

To difference of exchange per annum paid by the people in consequence of refusal of the Government to give to them a national currency

To amount paid by sale of public lands, per annum

To amount paid by consumers of articles of foreign merchandise in consequence of tariff duties

- $750,000

500,000

500,000

- 1,750,000

By appropriation for the improvement of navigation in Western rivers

000,000

000,000

000,000

000,000

Thus stands the account. But this is far from being the entire amount of our annual burden. There is to be added to this the sum of $120,000 for the ordinary expenses of the State Government, and the further sum of $800,000 interest upon our debt; which, with the sum of $1,750,000 before stated, makes an annual amount of $2,670,000, chargeable upon the industry and enterprise of our citizens. It is true, the demand for interest on our debt has not been punctually met, because of our inability to meet it. It stands charged against us, however, and must and eventually will be paid, without the repudiation of a farthing. In the language of my colleague, [Mr. LANE,] we will settle fair if we never pay. Well, sir, what is the proposition which Democracy makes to relieve us from this insupportable liability? Free trade again; by which the sum of $500,000 now paid by the consumers of tariff duties would be withdrawn from the account, and the sum of $1,371,730, to be raised by direct taxation, substituted. This would leave our liability for each year $3,541,730-an amount which we cannot pay while this Government pursues this "strict construction" policy, and a large portion of which we need not pay, because it would not be charged against us if the Government shall be ever administered, as it should, for the common benefit of all in every part of the Union. Is the gentleman surprised now that we oppose extravagant appropriations of money, no part of which is to be exWhen he aids in espended amongst ourselves! tablishing, for our benefit, a national bank, and thus strikes from our account $750,000; when he votes an appropriation of money to improve the navigation of western rivers to prevent the loss of our prop erty and the lives of our adventurous people,-his appeal to our generosity will not be characterized by the selfishness that now marks it, and will be entitled to more respect and receive more consideration.

The Atlantic States, in effect, pay nothing of the revenue of the Government. That a large portion of it is collected upon the seaboard, I admit; but what becomes of it? True, it is paid into the national treasury, and so is the $500,000 annually collected from Indiana; but it does not remain there. Congress appropriates the money, under the lash of "strict construction," for the army and navy, fortifications, light-houses, dry-docks, building vessels of war, the improvement of harbors, &c., not one of which objects is local to the West. And thus it is that what the Atlantic States pay into the treas

27TH CONG....3D SESS.

ury to-day, they get back again to-morrow in the form of an appropriation. This we could endureof this we would not complain; but the amount paid by these States, in its return, comes not alone as it went; it brings with it what the Western States pay; the $500,000, paid by Indiana contributes to swell the return tide, and that is in like manner expended upon the Atlantic coast.

For this reason I say that the Atlantic States, in effect, pay nothing. The public revenue alternates periodically between them and the treasury, performing a reliable and almost constant circulation; while the toiling, adventurous West is deprived of all participation in the pecuniary benefits resulting from the administration of the Government. It is constitutional for us to pay everything; unconstitutional for us to receive anything. Constituting, as our people do, nearly one-third of this Union, we have been made pack-horses to bear the load of the whole, and have been kept on "short allowance" at that. The inequality of the burdens imposed by a bad administration of national affairs upon the State of Indiana has been, and is, tenfold greater than those of which South Carolina ever complained; and yet I feel a just pride in saying, such has always been her attachment to our free institutions, in all her broad forests, her verdant prairies, and her populous towns, that not one traitorous hand was ever found to raise the standard of "nullification;" no demagogue to attract a passing crowd, to gasconade about "State sovereignty;" no patriot orator to talk grandiloquently of a "resort to original rights.". That State has thus far abided her time, and will continue so to do.

The second principle of "Democracy" is hard money; and this, with that of free trade, constitutes, as far as I have been able to learn, the whole affirmative creed of the party; the residue of it being a mere string of negatives. They are opposed to a United States bank-opposed to a State bank paper -opposed to extravagance in the national administration-opposed, in short, to everything that is of Whig origin-opposed to all but two political principles, and these are free trade and hard money. If they hold any other affirmative principle, it has been my misfortune never to see or hear it published.

Hard money! It is a very primitive idea for an "improvement party," and one that, discarding all the lessons of experience and all the conveniences of modernized society, carries us back by historical association to the pastoral age for examples in finance. A strange "progression" this, that with one bound leaps back over all civilization, and snatches from the darkest age of barbarism a light to guide the financial policy of the American Republic! But how is this principle to affect the country, if established in practice by the restoration of the "Democracy" to power? That the circulating medium of the country, composed of a mixed currency of bank paper and specie, is the representative of the value of the property of the country, is a fact conceded by all parties; and that, in proportion to the increase of the circulation, prices rise, and in proportion to the decrease prices fall; or, in other words, if the standard of value decreases, everything represented by it retrogrades in exact proportion. Hence it is, that, in the years 1836 and 1837, when the circulation was inflated to double the present amount, prices were double what they now are. That inflation of circulation and consequent inflation of prices was caused by "Democratic policy, which gave to us the State banks, and stimulated them to extravagant emissions of paper; but, no sooner was the object accomplished, than the popular prejudice which was awakened by the appeals of demagogues against the United States Bank; and, not sated by its revels amid the ruins of the best currency ever given to a nation, turned like a hungry tiger upon these "little monsters," and the leaders of the party were compelled to join in the attack, or be swept from the political world by the fury of that spirit which, for another purpose, they had invoked. They did join in the attack, and these currency bantlings of theirs were denounced; their very fathers at first cast imputations upon their legitimacy, and ultimately threw off all disguises, and with bold profligacy declared them to be of Whig origin, and unworthy of the countenance of the Democracy.

sume,

com

Credit cannot exist against popular will; and the credit of these institutions, by the ceaseless attacks of party leaders, was destroyed. They were pelled to contract their circulation one-half or more, and the country was deprived of one-half its currency; the representative of value was decreased, prices fell in proportion, and the people were ruined. And now, to remedy the evils wrought by their hands, they offer to us this hard-money panacea as the only one left in their budget of nostrums. The mixed currency of this country amounts to about two hundred millions of dollars, of which eightyseven millions is of gold and silver. For the purpose of illustrating the position which I shall asI will state the amount of gold and silver at $100,000,000, which is more favorable to the hardmoney party. Under the present circulation, the real and personal property of the State of Indiana is assessed for purposes of taxation at $100,000,000, and upon each hundred dollars' worth a tax of thirty cents is levied. If the circulating medium were reduced one-half, by striking from it all bank paper, the property of that State, being represented by onehalf less than at present, would sink in value to $50,000,000. But how would it affect the taxes? A given sum must be collected, to raise which requires a tax of thirty cents upon each hundred dollars of the one hundred millions. If the one hundred millions be reduced to fifty millions, does it not follow that a tax of sixty cents upon each hundred dollars must be imposed to raise the sum required? Here, then, we have a remedy proposed, which, if adopted, will double the taxes paid by every citizen of Indiana, and at the same time reduce one-half his present means of paying them. But it will stop not with tax-payers; it will operate in ruinous effect upon all classes of society, except the money-lenders; and upon none more rigorously than the poor daylaborers. A policy that reduces in value one-half each farm, and all the produce raised upon it, in my State, will not except from its operation manual labor. This must also come down, to preserve the proportion between its value and that of property; and the ripening glories of "Democracy" are only to become visible when the humble laborer shall return at night to a family begging bread, with twelve and a half cents in his pocket-the reward of a day's hard toil! Such a doctrine may find advocates among rich creditors, but hardly, I should apprehend, among the indebted class of society; and I know but little of the farming population of my State if they are ready and willing to aid in establishing a policy that will compel them, by its process of reducing prices, to sell four hundred instead of two hundred bushels of wheat to raise the sum of one hundred dollars to pay a debt. The State of Indiana now can neither pay her debt nor the interest upon it; and it is but a poor compliment to her intelligence to suppose that she will be found acting with a party that proposes to double her indebtedness by way of relief to her inability to pay!

I have examined hastily, sir, the results of this Democratic faith, if ever reduced to practice, upon the people and upon the interests of my State; and, as Indiana has to national interests separate and distinct from those of her sisters of this great Confederacy, the effect of these measures upon her is but an example of what it will be upon the whole Union. Henceforth, let there be no misunderstanding or confusion about principles or positions. It seems to be agreed, upon all sides, that the great parties are to meet each other in the coming struggle, and do battle for their principles. On the one side we have free trade and direct taxation; on the other, a tariff for revenue and protection to American industry. One party swears eternal hostility to all banks, and offers to the country hard money only; the other opposes to it a national bank to regulate the currency and exchanges. One party proposes to reduce trade to the standard of currency; the other to increase the currency to meet the demands of trade. There is one measure besides, which the Whigs propose, that finds no antagonist principle in the Democratic party of an affirmative character. It is the distribution of the proceeds of the public lands-a measure which, if adopted, would annually distribute to the States large sums of money arising from the sales of their own lands. The sums which would be

H. of Reps.

thus thrown into the treasuries of the various States would enable many of them, without a resort to such onerous taxation as now prevails, to meet their liabilities with punctuality. To this measure the "Democracy" are opposed, but offer nothing as a substitute. I know of no other clear and well-defined principle advocated by either party, unless it be the hackneyed one of "economy," which is, and ever has been, professed by all politicians of every age and school; and if there be any other in the "Democracy," they would confer infinite obligations by disclosing it to the country.

Now, sir, I have said all that I desired to say by way of counter-attack upon the measures, principles, and policy of the minority of this House. I do not frequently obtrude my counsel upon the House, and should not have addressed it to-day, but that the "spirit was moved" by the fierce assaults which the gentleman from South Carolina thought it proper to make upon that party with which I have always acted. And this, Mr. Chairman, is perhaps the last time that my voice will ever be heard within the walls of this Capitol, speaking to my constituents or the nation the language of advice or warning. Since I have been here I have not sought to gratify any desire for display; but rather, like the gentleman from Vermont, [Mr. MATTOCKS,] have played the part of a good listener to the speeches of others; and, by submitting patiently to what, in many instances, has been rather an "afflicting dispensation," I give it as an opinion that I have richly earned my eight dollars per day. Still I have endeavored, by an unyielding devotion to the great principles which I have ever advocated, to deserve at least the commend. ation of that constituency through whose generous confidence I became a Representative.

And now, when about to retire from all participa tion in the legislation of the country, (as retire l shall, and surrender my trust to the power from which it emanated,) I cannot but be moved by the contemplation of the future condition, as it is to he affected by legislation here, of those from whom I have received unvarying demonstrations of kindness and favor. I disdain all affectation of philanthropy, nor do I arrogate to myself more than an ordinary share; but with others of my party I can and do feel for the misfortunes of my fellow-men. The time is not now, when I can look with the cold practised vision of the stoic, unconcerned, upon such testimonials as everywhere surround us, of deep, pervading, hopeless distress; and when a line of national policy is proposed for adoption which is to increase these testimonials and adds to this distress, I should be recreant to all duty to return to my constituents without first raising my voice here in warning and

remonstrance.

Free trade direct taxation! and hard money! To the "Democracy" here I say, You may, by one of the many accidents incident to a political campaign, succeed in establishing this faith in practice; but success will be the signal for revolution. The beggary of the subject is the security which the tyrant has of obedience to that will by which he is fed; but the free-born citizens of this Republic know that the Government itself is but an emanation from thei will; and, with a scrutinizing intelligence, they watch the influence of its administration upon their interests. They will endure much-suffer more; but I warn you, push not their forbearance too far, or the time may come when the toiling millions, impatient of the hard condition to which you would reduce them, will rebel against the power that oppresses, and, in all the majesty of frenzied despair, rush to the rescue of those rights which you would wantonly wrest from them; and if that shall ever come, happy will it be if their pathway be not reeking with fraternal blood, and strewn with the fragments of you glorious Republic.

Free trade, direct taxation, and hard money, are emblazoned upon your banner; and, if you shame not of it, meet us in the field with it at the head of your columns in 1844. Our ensign stands where it has always stood-upon the battlements of the Constitution; and upon its folds are inscribed in bold, clear characters, Protection to American industry, a sound national currency, and the distribution of the proceeds of the public lands,

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

REMARKS OF MR. LEVY,

OF FLORIDA,

In the House of Representatives, Feb. 11, 1843- On the claim of inhabitants of West Florida for indemnity under the 9th article of the treaty of 1819, between Spain and the United States.

Mr. SPEAKER: I will endeavor, with as much brevity and directness as possible, to present to the consideration of the House the views I entertain respecting this bill. I hope to be able to satisfy the minds of those who will favor me with their attention, that there is nothing in the grounds taken against its passage, by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. ADAMS,] which ought to prejudice its success. 1 shall even hope that the mind of the gentleman himself, upon a review of those grounds, may yield to the strong claims which the case provided for in this bill presents upon the justice and good faith of the nation.

The objections urged by the gentleman rested upon two principal grounds-to wit: 1. That the bill, as reported, would be inefficient of the object it contemplates; and, 2. That the claims it relates to were not intended to be provided for by the treaty between Spain and the United States.

I shall endeavor to reply to these objections; and will then take the occasion to add some further observations to the reply formerly made to the remarks of the gentleman from Ohio, respecting his proposed amendment, with the view of showing that he has entirely erred in his assertions as to the practice of this Government upon questions affecting the rights of property in slaves.

The first objection of the gentleman from Massachusetts is to the phraseology of the bill. Now, sir, is this-if even well founded-a justifiable reason for laying the bill on the table, as proposed by the motion of the gentleman? If there be merit in the claims of the persons designed to be provided for by it, does it comport with the justice of this House, and the honor of the nation, to refuse any action at all, because the form of the bill does not comprehend all the relief which is intended to be granted? If the bill is defective in its phraseology, it is the fault of its draughtsman, not of the claimants; and it is in the power of the House to amend or remodel it at pleasure. It would be monstrous to refuse that justice which has already been too long delayed, for the reason of supposed verbal inaccuracies in the form of a bill, the shape of which is entirely subject to the control of the legislative will. But although the bill is, perhaps, loosely prepared, I shall be quite content to take it as it stands. It is the reason of a law-the purpose of its passage--the intention of the Legislature, which controls its construction, even against its literal import; and I should have no fear whatever that the bill, if it becomes a law, would be so construed by any intelligent Secretary of the Treasury, as to render it fully effective of its palpable purpose. I repeat, sir, I am content to take it as it is; and if 1, who advocate the measure it embodies, am satisfied, surely those who are opposed may very well If there be no forego objection upon this score. other objection, give me the bill, and let us test its sufficiency.

The next, and the important objection of the gentleman, was, that the claims referred to by the bill were not designed to be comprehended in the provisions of the treaty for indemnity; and, in support of this position, (which the gentleman stated he knew to be the fact, having negotiated the treaty,) he referred to a former report made from the Committee on Foreign Affairs by Mr. Archer, and to the rejection of the claims by Mr. Crawford upon the same ground.

Now, sir, so far as the report of a former Congress may weigh, I propose to meet the one adverse report, from which the gentleman read, by exhibiting more than one favorable report, made to the House, The first and full report, made prior to that referred to, and subsequent to the rejection of the claims by the Secretary of the Treasury, emanated from a source challenging the respect and confidence of this House. It proceeded from a gentle-man whose ability as a statesman and jurist was long acknowledged in these halls, and who is even now filling a high and distinguished place in the service of the country--I allude, sir, to Mr. Everett of Massachusetts, then a member of this House, and now minister to England. Well, sir, Mr. Everett, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs, to which he belonged, reported directly in favor of the claims provided for in this bill, after a a full review

of the subject, and of the grounds upon which the objection to them rested.

[Mr. LEVY here read extracts from the report.] Then, again, sir, we have the able and elaborate report of the Committee on the Territories of the 26th Congress, made by a gentleman from New York, [Mr. MORGAN,] still a member of this House, in support of these claims, accompanied by a bill, of which the present is a literal copy. And we have now the report of a committee of the present Congress in favor of them, and upon whose report the bill under consideration has progressed thus far. Here then, sir, we have the weight of three reports of different Congresses in favor of these claims to balance against the one adverse report to which the gentleman has referred. The weight of reports, then, so far as that is of consequence, is clearly with the claimants.

The next item depended upon by the gentleman as a conclusion against the claim, was the decision of the Secretary of the Treasury against their validity under the treaty.

not

Now, sir, the decisions upon this point have been diverse. In the first place, the people of Florida regarded them as having been provided for; and presented them, under this belief, to the judge of West Florida. Here, then, was the popu lar understanding and conclusion. The judge of West Florida received and adjudicated them, as comprehended by the ninth article of the treaty, and provided for by the act of 1823 for carrying that act into effect. Here was the judicial decision upon the question. The Secretary of the Treasury decided that they were so comprehended. This was the political decision. The claimants appealed from the decision of the Secretary to Congress. And, as I shall show at a future stage of the argument, the decision of Con. gress, as exhibited in the act of 1834, was against the Secretary, upon the principles of his decision, although these claims of 1814 were not provided for in that act. Here, then, was the legislative decision. With the popular, the judicial, and the legislative constructions of the treaty in favor of the claimants, is the adverse political decision of the Secretary to be conclusive against them? I call it the political decision, because it is stated in one of the reports to have been the result of Cabinet advisement. Now, when it is considered that this was the decision of a quasi interested Executive, construing a treaty of its own negotiation in a manner most favorable to its own claims upon the thanks of the country for obtaining, by its diplomacy, great advantages at little cost, I respectfully submit whether its weight ought to be regarded as conclusive, or even equal to the popular, the judicial, and as I expect to prove, the legislative construction of the article involved.

Without stopping to discuss at present what 1 conceive to be the error of the argument in the report of the 21st Congress against these claims, 1 will proceed at once to present to the consideration of the House the views which have satisfied my own mind as to the obligation of the Government to award the indemnity claimed by the sufferers of West Florida in 1814.

The first, and, to my mind, sufficiently decisive proposition, I shall present, is, that the claim of the inhabitants of West Florida is a good one, without reference to any treaty stipulation, but considered separately, upon its own merits; and that the Unted States Government is bound by every established principle of national law and natural equity to recognise and discharge it as a debt.

If the same damages had been done within the limits of our own boundary to the private property of our own citizens, by an army in the service of the country, there would have been no hesitation on the part of the Federal Government to indemnify the sufferers. The duty has been recognised, in practice, by the acts of 1816 and 1818, and the innumerable private acts since then, providing indemnification for private property used or destroyed during the late war by the American army. In a single volume of the laws, which I have near me, (vol. 9,) there are no less than fifty private bills of this description. Now, if the obligation be admit ted in the case of injury to the private property of the citizens of our own Government, who are component members of the social compact, and sharing in the benefits of the Government and in the fruits of its military achievements, how infinitely stronger is the obligation in the case of such injury to the citizens of a foreign and friendly power-the peaceable inhabitants of neutral territory. But the duty

H. of Reps.

and the obligation are expressly defined and estab. lished, in cases such as this now presented, by writers upon national law.

What is the case? Pending a public war between the United States and Great Britain, a fleet of one of the belligerents sails into a harbor of a neutral province, and seizing upon a fort at its entrance, designs to employ the harbor for shelter and recruital in the prosecution of hostilities. A commander of the other belligerent marches by land with a large army, consisting of three thousand men-one-third of whom were savages, known to be difficult, and, indeed, incapable of restraint-entirely through the dominions of the neutral, without stopping to ask admission or passage, attacks and captures a city of the neutral, dislodges the enemy from the harbor, and afterwards, releasing the city, retires. In the course of the march to and fro, in the country of the neutral, ravages upon the private property of the peaceable peasants, and other in habitants of it, are committed. Provisions are taken for the use of the army, or wantonly destroyed; and the loss of other property, consisting of slaves, &c., occasioned to the owners.

Now, what is the law of nations applicable to the case? It must be remembered that no nation has the right to march an army within the territorial limits of a friendly or neutral power, without express permission of the sovereign. In certain cases, however, of actual or supposed necessity, it is justified; but with restrictions, and under obligations expressly defined. The law of nations, as laid down by Vattel, and applicable to the case, is to be found in the following passage:

"Extreme necessity may even authorize the temporary seiz. ure of a neutral town, and the putting a garrison therein, with a view to cover ourselves from the enemy, or to prevent the execution of his designs against that town, when the sovereign is not able to defend. But when the danger is over, we must immedia ely restore the place, and pay all the charges, inconveniences, and damages which we have occasioned by seizing it."-Book 3, chap. vii, section 121.

The obligation is here clearly stated to pay all the damages occasioned.

Now, let the necessity for the march of the American army into Florida be admitted: I seek not to dispute it. Yet that necessity grew not out of the hostile disposition of the neutral province, but resulted from its weakness, and inability to prevent the lodgment of the British force at Pensacola, This fact will be established by reference to vol. 7, p. 11, of Niles's Register, where it will be found recorded that the British applied to the Governor of Cuba for permission to rendezvous at Pensacola, and land troops; which permission was peremptorily refused, and a packet despatched to Pensacola, with orders to the Governor to repel the landing of British troops in that province, with all the force under his control." But what could the inconsiderable military strength of a small provincial town, upon peace establishment, do in repelling from its harbor seven frigates, with an army on board? Where, then, is the excuse for refusing the discharge of an obligation so clearly imposed by the laws of nations?

But are not the plain dictates of equity equally imperative? Why should the innocent inhabitants of a foreign territory be made to bear any part of the cost of an invasion undertaken for your own advantage, without fault on their part? For it is not pretended they took any hostile part against the United States; and surely the weakness of their Government attached no fault to them.

But suppose, however, even that the invasion of West Florida was a legitimate act of war against the Spanish Government, and was subject only to the rules and principles governing a state of public war-still the private property of its inhabitants was not legitimate subject of capture or destruction on land; the more especially as the inhabitants of Florida were non-combatants. No principle is better settled, in the practice of civilized nations, than that, by the laws and usages of war, the private property of the citizens shall not be taken or destroyed, without indemnity being made. This principle is vouched in our own practice, and has been distinctly asserted by the American GovernIt will be found in the instructions of Mr. Monroe (then Secretary of State) to the American plenipotentiaries at Gottenburg, dated January 28, 1814; (see Wait's State Papers, vol. 9;) and again in the diplomatic correspondence of the gentleman from Massachusetts himself, while Minister to Great Britain, on two occasions, to wit: in his letter of August 22, 1815, to Mr. Monroe; and of Feb

ment.

27TH CONG.... 3D SESS.

ruary 17, 1816, to Lord Castlereagh. [Mr. L. read extracts from these several letters.]

And here occurs the proper occasion to point to the error in the argument of the adverse report of the twenty-first Congress. That argument rests upon the ground that the invasion was a justifiable act. What legitimately follows? That the Spanish nation would have no rightful claim for damages to public property, or for the violation of her territorial sanctity. But the fault of the report is, that it carries its conclusion still further, and denies to the inhabitants indemnity for damages to private property; a right which they would possess by the usages of civilized nations, even in the case of open public

war.

Regarded, then, in any point of view, the inhabitants of West Florida had, at the date of the destruction or capture of their property, a perfect, indubitable, and valid right to indemnity from this Government. Has their claim to this indemnity been cancelled? Certainly not by payment; and, with equal certainty, not by the relinquishment of the losers; for they have never ceased to demand the due indemnity. Has it been renounced? Show me where. By the treaty? Sir, the very same construction of the terms of the 9th article, which is necessary to establish the renunciation of the claims of the Spanish Government to indemnity for the violation of her territorial domain, is unavoidably decisive of the agreement by this Government to indemnify the Spanish inhabitants for the injuries they suffered.

But can it be possible that the claim would have been renounced-nay, would have been permitted by this Government to be renounced, without indemnification? It is undeniable, that, up to the date of the treaty, the individual sufferers by the invasion of West Florida had a valid and subsisting claim to indemnity. Had they continued Spanish subjects, they would have had the right to demand of their Government the assertion and enforcement of their claim against the United States. This Government would have been compelled to recognise and discharge the obligation to indemnify them: yes, sir, compelled-not by the physical force of the Spanish nation, (which, it is well known, would have been incompetent;) but by that moral force which the obligations of justice, and the established rules of international law, as recognised and existing among the civilized communities of the earth, exert over each nation. Now, sir, would it have suited the pride, the generosity, the dignity, and morality of this great nation, to have treated with Spain for the unqualified can celment of debts due to private individuals, when, by the same instrument, the allegiance of those individuals was to be transferred, and thus all possibility of justice withdrawn from them? If it was a good debt, Spain, in relinquishing it, of course, received consideration; and thus we will have been a party to a cruel wrong, by permitting her to rob the people she was about to transfer, at the very moment they were becoming, and by the very instrument which made them, citizens of the United States. No, sir: it cannot be that this Government designed to inflict upon these people so great a wrong. If the claim has been renounced, that renunciation must have been coupled with a provision for the indemnification of the individual suffer.

ers.

No other supposition would be consistent with the magnanimity and justice of the nation; and no other construction, as I before said, is possible to be given to the clause of the treaty. If it has not been renounced, then the debt remains still binding; and it is incumbent on you, as I humbly conceive, since the claimants have become incorporated with you as your own citizens, to do, as an act of free duty and grace, what, if they had remained subject to Spain, you would have done, upon the demand of that Government, as an obligation of justice. The purchase of the country, and transfer of their political obligations, should work no injury to their private rights.

But I propose to show now, sir, that these claims for the losses of 1814 were, in fact, provided for by the treaty; that such is the fair construction of the ninth article of that treaty; that, whatever may have been the understanding or design of the negotiators, the words in which they have expressed their intention incontrovertibly establish the right of the inhabitants of West Florida to the relief provided in this act.

The distinguished negotiator of the treaty on the American side [Mr. ADAMS] represents, in his place here, that it was not intended to include these

claims in the provision made in the treaty for indemnity, which provision was designed to apply only to the damages occasioned by the operations of the American army in West Florida in 1818; and that those of 1814 did not enter into the contemplation of the negotiators at all.

I readily, upon the assertion of the gentleman, concede that such is a correct representation of his understanding and intentions at the time of the treaty. But I must be allowed to offset this understanding of the American negotiator, by the contrary understanding of the Spanish negotiator. De Onis published a work shortly after his return to Spain, in which he gives a sketch of the condition of the relations between Spain and the United States, and of the history and result of his recent negotiations, which ended in the treaty not then ratified by Spain. In the enumeration of the causes of difference between the two nations, which his negotiation was designed to settle, he says:

"To these public acts of aggression and violence were afterwards added General Jackson's march through West Florida, with the troops under his command, and his entrance into Pensacola, to drive from that place the few English who had landed there; and the march of another body of American troops into East Florida, to assist a party of revolters, who, from the United States themselves, were endeavoring to excite disorder in that province. I protested, in the name of the King, against all and each of these excesses; but the cabinet at Washington refused to reply to me, and inflexibly adhered to their system of policy."

The title of the book from which this extract is made, is "Memoir upon the Negotiations between Spain and the United States of America, which led to the Treaty of 1819."

Thus it will be seen, that, according to the understanding of De Onis, the damage occasioned by the invasion of 1814 was one of the very grounds of difference intended to be arranged by the negotiation he conducted.

This difference in the understanding of the two negotiators might naturally exist, without the slightest imputation upon the integrity or accuracy of either; and without injury, too, to the rights of the claimants. It is perfectly explicable.

The gentleman from Massachusetts was not in the United States when the invasion of West Florida, in 1814, occurred. He was at that date in Europe, as one of the commissioners for negotiating a peace with Great Britain. His mind and feelings were naturally absorbed with the great mission he was upon, and which, about that time, was reaching the point of happy consummation. The invasion of West Florida was not likely to strike his attention at such a time; and when he did hear of it, it was in connexion with the evermemorable victory of New Orleans, among the preliminary incidents of which the incursion into Florida formed but an item. No wonder that the invasion of Florida, overshadowed and lost sight of in the greatness of the final event with which it was connected, failed, under the existing circumstances, to impress itself upon the mind of the gentleman at the time of its occurrence; and there were reasons why it may well have failed to attract his attention during the negotiation. His mind was given to what constituted the really great objects of the negotiation, and upon which his diplomatic powers were about being exercised. The boundary line west of the Mississippi-the acquisition of the Floridas-the undisputed title to the extensive and valuable country between the Perdido and Mississippi rivers;-these were the great topics of the negotiation. The subject of Spanish claims was despatched in a few sentences of an immensely voluminous correspondence.

On the other hand, there was every reason why the Spanish minister should have had his attention fixed upon the subject of these losses. Reduced by the superior genius and diplomacy of his antagonist, he was consenting to almost every demand of the American Government. The western boundarythe Floridas-the payment of the claims of American citizens-all were being yielded. And what was he receiving, by which to save even the appearance of reciprocity, and to justify himself at home? The small and only stipulation in favor of the inhabitants of Florida. No wonder, then, that, upon his part, he should have looked with interest and anxiety to this matter of the claims for indemnity. To him, it was all important; and therefore dwelt upon during the nogotiation, and treasured after it. To the American Government, it was a trifle; and therefore not heeded in the negotiation, and, it would seem, not remembered after it.

But it is a matter of indifference what may be the variant understanding or recollection of the two

H. of Reps.

negotiators. The meaning of the treaty is to be gathered from its own words and context. It is to the instrument itself, and not to its negotiators, that we are required to look for the intention and stipu Jations of the parties to it. This has been ac knowledged by the gentleman from Massachusetts, in commenting upon a letter from Earl Bathurst to him, in 1815, respecting the meaning of the 1st article of the treaty of Ghent.

Look, then, to the treaty. The clause is as fol

lows:

IN ENGLISH. "And the high contracting

IN SPANISHI. "Las altas partes contratan-tes renuncian reciprocamente parties, respectively, renounce todos sus derechos a indcmni all claim to indemnities for any zaciones por qualquiera de los of the recent events or transac ultimos aconticimientos y tran tions of their respective com sacciones de sus respectivo manders and officers in the comandantes y oficiales en las Floridas. Floridas "The United States will cause Y los Estados Unidos satis-satisfaction to be made for the faran los perjuicios, si los hu injuries, if any, which, by probiese habido, que los habitantes cess of law, shall be established y oficiales Esparoles justifi to have been suffered by the quen legalmente haber sufri Spanish officers, and individual do por las operaciones del ex- Spanish inhabitants, by the late ercito Americano en ellas." operations of the American ar my in Florida.

Nothing can be more evident-looking to the English version alone-than that the stipulation to pay for the injuries suffered by individuals in their property, was co-extensive with the renunciation: that, if the renunciation on the part of Spain extended to each of the three invasions; the stipula tion, on the part of the United States, to make indemnity to individual private sufferers, extended also to each of them. If the stipulation to pay applied only to the last invasion-that of 1818; then, also, the renunciation applied only to that, and the United States remain liable to the claim for those indemnities. Taking either horn of the dilemma, the result is the same. But if there is even doub the Government should not hesitate as to its course. The high and sensitive impulses of national honor will not brook even suspicion of wrong. The very shadow of dishonor should be spurned. It should be sufficient that there is even a doubt as to the right to deny indemnity to these claimants, to en sure the passage of this bill. The faith of treaties is too sacred an obligation to be trifled with by a people professing a place in the ranks of moral and civilized nations.

But if the English version of the treaty admits of doubt in its construction, the Spanish does not. There the word "late," found in the English version, and upon which the decision of the Secretary of the Treasury turned, has no correspondent word in the Spanish version. There is nothing which can limit its sense to the last invasion; but, on the contrary, the descriptive terms are all in the plu. ral-showing that the allusion was to all the opera tions, and to both the Floridas. No one will deny, after a critical examination of the Spanish version, that the losses of 1814, as well as those of 1812 and 1818, are meant to be provided for.

Now, then, by which of these versions are we to be governed? Fortunately, the Supreme Court of the United States has furnished the answer. In a case in which a similar difference in the phraseology of the Spanish and English versions of the 8th article of the same treaty was discovered, the court thus comments:

"The original treaty has been examined in the Department of State. It is executed as an original, and headed "original" in both languages. It cannot have escaped our attention that it relates to the territory ceded, the boundaries between those two Governments, the mutual renunciations, and the right of the inhabitants of the ceded territories. There is an obvious reason fr its being in Spanish, as well as in English. The King had a direct interest, as far as aff cred his own dominioas adjoining the United States, and a laudable desire to protect the inhabit ants of the ceded provinces in all their rights and property."U. S vs. Arredondo, 6 Peters's R. 736,

Again: "His minister was ot willing to trust so importants mater to a treaty only in the English language. The present eit ation of the holders of the grants, the state of the country, the opinion of this court in foster rs Nelson, and the argument të this canse, show the wisdom and justice which prompted him to express the intention of the King in his own language, and that of his subjects. Similar, or equally good, reasons may have induced the ministers of this Government to have the treaty drawn in its language; and thus, considering the treaty in both languages, and each (as is declared at its bead) original,' the one version neither controls, nor is to be preferred to, the other; each expresses the meaning of the contracting parties respectively, in their own language; as, in the opinion of each, expressing and declaring the intention of both."-16 737. "The Spanish version was in his (the Spanish monarch'e) words, and expressed his intentions; and, though the American version showed the intention of this Government to be diferent, we cannot adopt it as the rule by which to decide what was granted, what excepted, and what reserved. The rules of law are too clear to be mistaken, and too imperative to be disregard ed by this court."-Ib. 741,