27TH CONG... 3D SESI. regenerated, and disenthralled," ready as ever to do balle in the cause of constitutional liberty, whether fortune frowned or fortune smiled. And although I will yet have hope, still I confess I am not free from feelings of despondency. I witnessed a scene here but two days since, which I should have been glad to avoid seeing. A Representative [Mr. BOTTS] rose in his place, and, appealing to Heaven for the rectitude of his intentions, avowed his determination to discharge his duty to a violated Constitution, regardless of all personal consequences. He preferred charges against the acting President of the United States, involving the highest crimes and misdemeanors; staked his reputation upon their truth, and his ability to prove them; asked this House for the appointment of a committee, merely that he might have an opportunity of establishing his charges, and submit the result to the House. And what did we see? In a House containing a nominal Whig majority of at least thirty, the proposition failed by a inajority of forty-tour." If I ever saw an instance of moral sublimity, it was when my friend [Mr. BOTTS] held aloft his articles of impeachment, and, in strains of fervid eloquence, called upon the assembled Representatives of the nation to come to the rescue. I can assure my friend he needs no prouder monument to his fame-no richer legacy for his children. I am aware that many voted against the proposition because, as they avowed, they would not bestow on John Tyler so much consideration and importance. This reminds me of the reply of Barreie, in the national convention of France, to the accusation proposed by the virtuous Lonvet against the bloody Robespierre: "Let us," said Barrere, "cease to waste our time on men who will fill no place in history; let us not put pigmies on pedestals; the civic crowns of Robespierre are mingled with cypress." The convention passed quietly on to "the orders of the day"-just as this House did on Tuesday "a fatal error," says the historian, "which France had cause to lament in tears of blood." The earnest and eloquent appeals of Louvet, Barbaroux, and Lanjuinais, were unheeded; and the Girondists of that day, like the Whigs of this, reposed in listless security; while the Jacobins (to use the language of the historian) "were daily sharpening their poniards." Much as the character of this debate ought to be regretted, for the credit of the House and the country, yet it has produced one result at which I feel pleased. It has clearly traced the lines of party demarcation in this hall. It has proven--what I have long known--that there are but two parties in this House; and that the Tyler faction-for it never deserved the name of a party-has become merged in, and thoroughly identified with, the Locoloco party; and I do hope that, amid the seething and boiling of the political caldron, of which the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. CUSHING] Spoke, the Whig party will at last be thoroughly purified, and all the froth and scum will not only be thrown upward, but tossed over the brim. I have long felt sure that the bargain had been consummated in secret; at last it has been publicly ratified on this floor. To be sure, there has been some little coyness manifested in the interchanges of affection that have been passing across the hall; but not more, I suppose, than is usual on such occasions of endearment, and far less than I think decency required. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. CUSHING] threatened the already-forged thunderbolts of the veto power, unless his new Democratic allies would rally under the Tyler standard. The member from Indiana [Mr. KENNEDY] said, in response, he was opposed to the Democratic majority in the next Congress forcing anything on Mr. Tyler, that was likely to meet with the veto. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. WELLER] pronounced a labored eulogy on Mr. Tyler, and, it seems, felt authorized to act the part of counsellor to him, and advised him to rid himself of Messrs. Webster and Spencer as soon as possible. The gentleman from New York, [Mr. BowNE,] who seems to be more catholic in his political feelings, declared his readiness to receive these two last, as repentant sinners, with open arms. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. PICKENS] welcomed the gentleman from Massachusetts into the Democratic ranks; said he had long seen that he (Mr. C.) had a leaning to his (Mr. P.'s) side, but that he was afraid of his colleague on the right, [Mr. ADAMS]— no very great compliment, by the way. And the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. PROFFIT,] in order to prove his approbation of this offensive and de The Bankrupt Law-Mr. Rayner. fensive alliance, poured out a torrent of abuse against that man of whom he once said, on this. floor, that he "wished he could make President of the world." What a humiliating spectacle is here exhibited! A party elevated to power by the overwhelming voice of a long outraged people, with such sacrifices, such patriotic devotion, such honest enthusiasm, as never marked the progress of civil revolution before; and that, too, with the shouts, the prayers, and the blessings of thousands, who saw in it the harbinger of hope, and the prospect of a brighter day--and scarcely had we commenced the great work of reform intrusted to our hands, when he, whom we had imprudently placed in the line of promotion, by which he became invested with the Executive power, opened negotiations with our enemies; ungratefully and cruelly made war upon us; taunted us with our unfortunate condition; and, as though we were slaves with manacles on our hands, declared to us, through his confidential organs, that the great constitutional functions which we intrusted to him would be exercised for the benefit of those only who would worship at the shrine of his power. Never since the days of Judas Iscariot has there been an instance of such shameless and unblushing treason. Mr. Speaker, although I have been amused-as every one here must have been-at the developments that have taken place during this debate; yet I cannot reflect on it seriously, without feeling the most intense pain and humiliation. The sentiments which were uttered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. CUSHING] fell on my ear as the foreboding of the evils that are fast clustering around the destinies of our country. When I have reflected on the probable fate which ultimately awaited our nation, I have supposed that our Government-like all those that have preceded itwould, in obedience to that principle of change and revolution with which the decree of fate seems to have stamped all human institutions, have its day of degeneracy, decline, and ruin. But I have consoled myself with the hope that this period was in the far, far distant future; and that it would not come till we and our children, and our children's children, had passed away and been forgotten. But the declarations of the gentleman from Massachusetts have aroused me to the conviction of the corrupted and vitiated state of the public mind. And can it be must history record it--that, in the very infancy of our Republic, in the fifty-fourth year of our existence, one who is recognised as possessing the especial confidence of the Executive, boldly and recklessly came into this hall, and here, in the face of the assembled Representatives of the nation, declared that the power and patronage of this Government would be wielded for the benefit of them who would sustain those in power? The open avowal of such sentiments affords alarming proof of the corruptions of the times-of the degeneracy of this age. The distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS] has compared it to the sale of the empire by the prætorian bands of Rome. It is worse than that. It was in the streets of Rome, amid the shouts and huzzas of the rabble, and not in the Senate-house, that the prætorian cohorts sold. the imperial purple to him who would bid highest for its honors. And whilst mercenary swords were clothing with power the leaders of faction in the field of Mars, the flame of liberty still continued to burn in the councils of the Senate-house. It was there that the principles of freedom had been most devoutly cherished-it was there that they last expired. It was there that the precepts of Fabius and Cincinnatus, and Cato, and the Scipios, were last quoted with reverence--it was there that their vir tuous and heroic actions were last forgotten. But here, in our Government--and in its infancy tooit is in the Representative hall of the nation, that Executive power and patronage, and Executive influence in the appointment of a successor, are offered as the reward of party allegiance. And that to come from Massachusetts too!-from the land of the Pilgrim Fathers!- from the classic soil of Lexington and Bunker Hill!-the first to resist tyranny-and must she bear the reproach of being the first to offer, through one of her sons, to barter away the rights for which she so gloriously suffered and bled? These sentiments of the gentleman from Massachusetts are only the echo of what was heard a few inonths since in Faneuil Hall, from one whom that patriotic State so lang looked on and cherished with pride and glory. How times must have changed!how the public mind must have degenerated! That H. of Reps. one, whose fame and character belonged to the na tion, should have uttered the detestable doctrine, that the fact of there being many Whigs yet retained in office, should be a reason why that party should not denounce what they, in their hearts, be lieve to be the corruptions of this Administration ! That the consideration of place should hush them into silence when they see public virtue scouted, and popular rights trampled into dust!-and that, too, in walls consecrated to freedom, where the spirit-stirring tones of resistance to tyranny have so often aroused the free and the brave! Would to God these sentiments could have originated with some one else than Daniel Webster! Time once was, when every patriotic American felt proud that Daniel Webster was his countryman. His gigantic and commanding talents had endeared him to every lover of his country's glory. His noble efforts in many a trying contest had equally endeared him to every lover of constitutional freedom. What must have been the feelings of his friends-those friends who had cherished, sustained, and cheered him on in so many conflictswhen, on an occasion by which they sought to do him honor, instead of reviving their drooping spirits, and advising and encouraging them in their approaching struggle, he met them with reproaches, revilings, and bitter taunts! Sir, he is gone; and let him go! He not only abandoned us in the hour of our triumph, but he is now doing service in the ranks of those who have so often felt the force of his mighty arm. He may now, perhaps, console himself with the idea that, although he cannot save himself, yet, like Samson, he can bury beneath the ruins of our political edifice the object of his hatred. Still, if he possesses the common sympathies and feelings of our nature, the day of remorse must come. Like Themistocles, (who tarnished the escutcheon of his fame by negotiating with his former enemies,) he may, perhaps, receive his reward in some paltry office under his new allies; yet his declining years must be embittered with the recollection of the bright hopes he has withered, the af flicting evils he has brought upon his country. What must be his reflections, on contemplating the character and progress of this debate? His name--which was once so mighty-now become a byword, and an object of jest and ridicule in this hall, which formerly echoed and re-echoed the sound of his voice! His name tossed about him with jeers and reproaches! One party mourning over his fall and his desertion, and the other rejecting his proffered alliance with scorn! Would to God, for the honor of our country, that this cup could have passed us by! The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. MARSHALL] spoke of the "scorn and contempt" with which Mr Webster must have treated the denunciations which have been uttered against him. So far as the Whig party in this House is concerned, the gentleman has begged the question. I deny that he has been denounced and anathematized here. I call upon every one within the sound of my voice to say if Mr. Webster has not been treated with the greatest forbearance and moderation. It is with pain and regret that his present position is alluded to here by the Whigs. It has, until lately, been in the language of apology for his course, and of hope that he would yet restore himself to the confidence of long-tried and faithful friends, that his conduct has been spoken of by the Whigs in this House. It is from the other party--from those whose cause he is now aiding-that he has received denunciation most heavy. But if he has been denounced by the Whigs, would not his denunciation be prima facie evidence that he deserved it? What interest could the Whig party have in denouncing such a man? Would it not rather be their interest to preserve so strong an ally--to possess the aid and influence of his mighty mind? And after adhering to him so long, through so many eventful struggles-is it fair, is it reasonable, to suppose that his former Whig friends here should denounce him without sufficient cause? To suppose so, was to reason against all the natural springs and impulses of human action. As to the "scorn and contempt," of which the gentleman from Kentucky spoke, that is too easy a way of answering a proposition, for one of his logical mind. Suppose we have indulged in complaints-or censures, if you please: still, can "scorn and contempi" answer the charge? Do they prove that our censures are not well founded? Can they make atonement for the wrongs we have endured? "Scorn and contempt" are the cheapest of all men 27TH CONG....3D SESS. tal impulses; they afford evidence neither of intellect of the head, nor feeling of the heart. They are the impulses with which selfishness always regards honest and unfortunate suffering; with which heartless tyranny always looks on the complaints of the oppressed. The unfeeling miser listens with "scorn and contempt" to the cries of suffering poverty; the cruel despot feels "scorn and contempt" for the complaints of injured innocence. Domitian, no doubt, felt the same for the cries of the agonized Christians when torn to pieces by ravenous beasts; he felt "scorn and contempt" for the very prayers which, in the struggles of death, they offered to Heaven for his conversion-▬▬ [Here Mr. RAYNER'S hour expired; and he took his seat.] n HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, March 2, 1812. GENTLEMEN: I ask the favor that you will publish in the Congressional Globe or Appendix the following statement of my views in reference to the treaty concluded at Washington in 1842. When the bill carrying it into effect was reported to the House by Mr. CUSHING, it was distinctly announced that a report would subsequently be made. The Committee on Foreign Affairs determined not to make a report; and, as a member of that committee, I was deprived of an opportunity of presenting the grounds of my dissent thereto; the debate in the House being cut short, I was again deprived of a similar opportunity. I, therefore, ask an insertion in your congressional record. Your obedient servant, JAS. A. MERIWETHER. Messrs. BLAIR & RIVES. In considering the treaty concluded at Washington on the 9th of August, 1842, between the United States of America and her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, an important preliminary question arises as to the right and duty of the National Legislature to deliberate on the expediency of carrying the treaty into effect--Whether, after it has passed through all the solemn forms of ratification by both Governments, it is not the supreme law of the land, binding on the whole nation; and, as such, that the Legislature cannot refuse to co-operate in its execution, without a violation of its duty under the Constitution, and of the faith of the nation? The question increases in interest, because of the peculiar character of some of the provisions of the treaty. The constitutional power of Congress to establish a navy is invoked; ships are to be built and repaired, officers commissioned, seamen enlisted, munitions of war provided, large sums of money appropriated for a series of years, and the policy of the Government and its expenditures changed and enlarged; all of which require the sanction and action of the Legislature. The question acquires additional interest from the course of the Executivea branch of the treaty-making power. Instead of inviting a co-operation on the part of the Legislature in the execution of the treaty, it seems to be taken for granted that no power or right belongs to that department of the Government to exercise any volition whatever. Instead of asking at the hands of the Representatives of the people the necessary appropriations to complete and support the naval force called into existence by the provisions of the treaty, and of either directly or indirectly asking the sanction of Congress thereto, the estimates for this service are presented only as the usual and ordinary objects of expenditures, and the appropriations sought professedly with no other object than to carry on the ordinary routine of governmental duty; when, if they be granted, the purpose of the Executive is manifest, to carry into effect the treaty. And when a demand is made upon the Executive for information, by a branch of the Legislature, as to the cost and probable annual of expense of a squadron, in compliance with the treaty, the answer returned is, that the squadron "is merely a part of the customary and useful employment of our vessels of war;" that it is not to be "regarded as an increase of the navy;" nor "would it be proposed to reduce the navy, if it were not necessary." The manner in which this appropriation is sought, covered up under the general estimates for "customary" expenditures, and the evident and certain design of appropriating the squadron, when commissioned and provided for, for the purpose of carrying into effect the treaty, show too clearly that The British Treaty-Mr. Meriwether. the Executive regards Congress as bound to carry it into effect, irrespective of all convictions of the utter inexpediency of doing so. The fact that the treaty has been ratified, and announced under the proclamation of the President to the people of the United States, and communicated to both branches of Congress, clearly implies that he regards the concurrence of the Legislature as totally unnecessary to give any validity whatever to it. I countenance no such doctrine as this. I deny that the Congress is bound, upon terms of unconditional submission, to observe a treaty made and ratified according to the forms prescribed in the Constitution. There are cases in which it may refuse its co-operation; and those cases are to be determined by a sound discretion, in view of all the attending circumstances. If the treaty could be executed without the intervention of Congress, it might be regarded as binding upon the whole people; and hence becomes a rule of action, prescribed by the superior power, and which the inferior must obey; and assumes all the dignity and authority of any other law. But, if such intervention is necessary, then the Legislature is as free to act as the Executive, and to withhold or yield its concurrence. Without this rule of interpretation, the rights of the Legislature would be wholly sacrificed; a Representative would be forced to lay aside all judgment for himself, to follow implicitly the dictates of others, and, knowingly, to vote for a palpable violation of that Constitution which he had most solemnly sworn to support. Without this interpretation, the power of raising a navy, of enlisting an ariny, of naturalization, of taxation, or of regulating commerce, (all of which are vested solely in Congress,) would be transferred to the President and Senate; and the voice of the people, through their popular elections, totally lost and neglected. Again: there is no express restraint whatever in the Constitution on the treaty making power. A cession of a sovereign State might be made to a foreign Government; entangling and ruinous alliances formed-alliances, offensive and defensive, with the most loathful and odious people, under circumstances revolting to all honorable and Christian feelings; the particular and special powers and rights of the Representatives of the people to originate all money bills might be swept away by a treaty with a foreign Government, made and ratified by the President and Senate. Under these circumstances, would it be contended for a moment that the Legislature should not refuse its aid to carry such a treaty into effect? It may be said that such a course, by the Legislature, would be uncourteous and impolitic, and cause foreign nations to become jealous of us, when we have such a power in reserve. This would be a strong argument against the exercise of the power, unless for satisfactory causes. But such considerations have as much influence over the action of the Legislature, as they have over that of the Executive; and it is fair to presume that the former will as faithfully protect the national interest and honor as the latter, and would not be any more likely to be influenced by trivial But there is one reason which should render this construction of the powers of the Legislature satisfactory to all; and that is, that this power of withholding their co-operation is the only check upon the treaty-making power which can be possessed and exercised by the people. causes. Shortly after the adoption of the Constitution, this material question was fully discussed and settled by the adjudication of the House of Representatives, and by the people through them. In the year 1796, upon the ratification of the treaty with Great Britain, (commonly known as Jay's treaty,) during the administration of President Washington, the following declaration of opinion was made: Resolved, That it being declared, by the second section of the second article of the Constitution, "that the President shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur," the House of Representatives do not claim any agency in making treaties; but that when a treaty stipu lates regulations on any of the subjects submitted by the Constitution to the power of Congress, it must depend for its exe. cution, as to such stipulations, on a law or laws to he passed by Congress; and it is the constitutional right and duty of the House of Representatives, in all such cases, to deliberate on the expediency or inexpediency of carrying such treaty into effect, and to determine and act thereon, as in their judgment may be most conducive to the public good. This resolution was adopted by a vote of fiftyseven to thirty-five, and received the energetic support of such Republicans as Albert Gallatin, William B. Giles, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, and other no less distinguished statesmen; and when a bill was introduced to carry this treaty in H. of Reps. to effect, the expediency of making the necessary provisions by law was carried, in Committee of the Whole, by one vote majority, and passed in the House by a majority of three votes; the historian informing us that considerations of policy alone induced its passage. I have said this much in defence of the constitutional right and duty of the National Legislature against the disrespectful and haughty assumption of the executive department. Whatever motive may have prompted such conduct, on its part, its unqualified condemnation deserves to be promptly made, that its repetition may not be attempted, influenced by the impunity with which the present may have been received. I do not propose to enter upon the consideration of those stipulations of the treaty which can be executed independent of the co-operation of the Legislature. Of that class is the one defining the boundary line between the two countries, and determining the right of soil, by each Government, Yet, as large sums of money are to be appropriated to the States of Maine and Massachusetts, which can alone be done by the Legislature, in "consider. ation" of the "conditions and equivalents received therefor," in adopting the treaty line of boundary; the consideration and examination of those "equiv. alents" properly and rightfully belong to the Repre sentatives of the people. But, as the stipulation as to boundary is executed of itself-as the assent of those States has been yielded to that stipulation for a pecuniary consideration,-respect for the wishes of those sovereign members of our Union should induce a prompt co-operation by the Legislature in providing the means for carrying into effect so much of the treaty as provides for the payment of the sums therein specified. What advantages, however, have resulted to our own Government from the treaty, beyond the priv ilege of paying out to the States of Massachusetts and Maine a sum exceeding in amount half a million of dollars-all yet remain to be discovered. England has been ready, for years, to close in with the terms now adopted; and the reason that they were not long since made the basis of negotiation, was the refusal of our own Government to recognise them. The delay has resulted in conceding to England what she desired, and not in securing to ourselves better terms. Yet I do not feel that the considera. tion of a "bad bargain" should influence the Legislature to withhold its co-operation from the stipula tions of the 5th article, which depend exclusively, for their execution, upon this department of the Government. Other stipulations of the treaty, giving rise to questions of much greater importance than any growing out of the article referred to, do require the co-operation of the Legislature to give effect to them; and without that co-operation, they must remain wholly inoperative. The magnitude of the principles involved, and the surrender of rights by our Government, which were never before permitted to be questioned or debated-which follow upon the act of the Legislature co-operating in executing those stipulations, and the preservation of those rights, which can alone be had by its refusal of such co-operation-render the position of Congress, and more especially that of the House of Representatives, of the most vital importance to the future destiny of our country. By the terms of the 8th article of the treaty, the right of capture, deten tion, and search of our merchant vessels on the coast of Africa, has been ingloriously placed at the disposal of the Federal Executive, to be at his discretion surrendered to the British Crown, upon the surrender of a like privilege to the American ships over the British merchant vessels on the same coast. The establishment of a squadron of vessels, in pursuance of the terms of the treaty, perfects the surrender of that right: the refusal to make provision for such squadron, maintains our national rights upon that great question. It then becomes a subject of the deepest importance to the Represent atives of the people, how far they will compromit the rights of their constituents, and tarnish the national honor, by a co-operation in the execution of so much of the treaty. The eighth article is in these words: "Article 8th. The parties mutually stipulate, that each shall prepare, equip, and maintain in service on the coast of Africa, a sufficient and adequate squadron, or naval force of vessels, of suitable numbers and descriptions, to carry in all not less than eighty guns, to enforce, separately and respect ively, the laws, rights, and obligations of each of the 27TH CONG......SD SESS. two countries, for the suppression of the slave trade; the said squadrons to be independent of each other; but the two Governments stipulating, nevertheless, to give such orders to the officers commanding their respective forces as shall enable them most effectually to act in concert and co-operation, upon mutual consultation, as exigencies may arise, for the attainment of the true object of this article: copies of all such orders to be communicated by each Government to the other, respectively." By the eleventh article of the treaty, it is provided: "The eighth article of this treaty shall be in force for five years, from date of the exchange of ratifications, and afterwards until one or the other party shall signify a wish to terminate it." The peculiar phraseology of the "eighth article" renders the extent of its meaning somewhat equivocal. Its terms are contradictory. It speaks of "independent squadrons," designed to enforce "separately and respectively" the laws of "each of the two countries;" and yet the two Governments are to give "such orders" to the "commanding officers," to enable them "effectually to act in concert and cooperation," upon "consultation," as "exigencies may arise," for the "attainment of the true object of this article;" and that "true object" is nothing more or less than the effectual suppression of the "African slave-trade." Here is the end to be attained; and the means which are to be employed are such as will "effectually" reach it. If the capture of our merchant vessels, their detention, visitation, and search, are necessary, in the opinion of the two Governments, under this treaty, by the "orders" of the Governments, the desecration of the national flag and the prostration of the citizens' rights may be made. The diplomatic history, as well as the pretensions of the two Governments growing out of it, will serve to illustrate more forcibly the effect of the stipulations complained of. In the preamble of the treaty now being considered, the following declarations are to be found: "Whereas by the treaty concluded at Ghent on the 24th December, 1814, between the United States and his Britannic Majesty, an article was agreed to, and inserted, of the following tenor, viz: "'ARTICLE 10. Whereas the traffic in slaves is irreconcileable with the principles of humanity and justice; and whereas both his Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition: it is hereby agreed that both the contracting parties shall use their best endeavors to accomplish so desirable an object: and whereas, notwithstanding the laws which have, at various times, been passed by the two Governments, and the efforts made to suppress it, that criminal traffic is still prosecuted and carried on: and whereas the United States of America, and her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, are determined that, so far as may be in their power, it shall be effectually abolished.'" Under the article in the treaty of Ghent, here referred to, England has asserted the right of search over our merchant vessels, to suppress the African slave-trade. The American Government has denied any such right. In fulfilment of the treaty, we have made the trade piracy, and have employed our naval force, to a great extent, in enforcing our laws. We have maintained, that since the slave-trade was not prohibited by the laws of nations, and since it was made piracy by our own municipal regulations, we could not, and would not if we could, permit a stranger, with his fleets and armies, to aid in the execution of our own laws; that our own officers must alone execute them; and that they, alone, must search and detain our own vessels; that the right of search by a stranger was a belligerent right, and would be so regarded and treated by our Government. In further evidence of the desire of our Government to carry into effect the treaty of Ghent, and the execution of her own laws, our vessels of war had been instructed to cruise in company with one or more British vessels, that American vessels might search the ships using the American flag, and the British vessels might search those of that nation, and of such other nations as had conceded to England the right of search. Here were the positions of the two Governments: England asserting the right of search as the means of suppressing the slave-trade; and the United States conceding and adopting every other means but that, for the purpose of attaining that end. There was, then, no midway ground left between the unconditional surrender and the unconditional denial of the right of The British Treaty—Mr. Meriwether. search. But it seems that the action of the American Government has not been satisfactory to England, in execution of the treaty. Notwithstanding the "laws which have been passed at various times," and the "efforts made to suppress it," "the slavetrade is still prosecuted;" and now the two Governments, being "determined" that it shall be "effectually abolished, so far as may be in their power," have adopted the eighth article of the treaty at Washington as the means by which the "trade" shall be thus "abolished." Then, as something more has been agreed to be done, the question is, What is it that shall be done? And if greater "efforts" are to be made, by which Government are they to be made? Looking back to the positions of the two Governments; the laws passed by each; the "efforts" made by each; and most especially the plan adopted, of vessels of each nation cruising together, that those belonging to either might be searched by the officers of their own Government; that all these efforts had failed; and the slave-trade was still prosecuted— what "effort" is there, as the ultimatum of "all in their power," that the slave-trade should be "abolished effectually," which could have been designed, but the concession of England's importunate and continued demand-the right of search? If the plan of permitting and requiring the vessels of each country to cruise together, which had covered the length and breadth of the concession of our Government, had proved ineffectual, then it was not embraced in those means contemplated by the parties to be employed when they declared their determination to use all in "their power" to arrest the trade. If it had proved "effectual," no treaty stipulations were needed. Whether effectual or not, it would have been an act of supererogation by both Governments, and an insult to our own, to have made it the subject of treaty negotiation; since our own Government had already proposed it to England, and both Governments had adopted it. Under such circumstances, the American Secretary could not have entertained the proposition, when coming from another; and he must, indeed, have been lost to all sense of national honor, if he could have thought one moment of submitting the proposition to the British minister. All the facts concur in establishing, clearly, that something beyond the enforcement of the laws of each nation by their own vessels was designed by the treaty; and nothing but the right of search could have been meant. This is the conclusion to which every unbiassed mind must come, in respect to the power intended to be surrendered to the executive discretion. Its force may be attempted to be broken, by the avowal of the substitution of the right of visitation, instead of the right of search. This is the special pleading with which the English court has for years attempted to mislead and deceive the American Government; this is the ground on which she always justified her recent outrages upon American shipping. But there is no such distinction in the maritime law of nations, and the usage of the admiralty courts of any country. If visitation is not accompanied with search, it is an empty mockery. This theory of England has been reduced to practice; and we have, in her visitation of American ships, demonstration conclusive of what she means by the right. These visitations were followed by search of persons and papers, of vessel and cargo; and sometimes not only by a protracted detention of the vessel, but by the actual carrying her into port for adjudication. This practical illustration shows that what is meant by the right of visitation, is the right of visitation and search. It was so regarded by our Govern. ment in 1818, when Mr. Secretary Adams, in repelling the proposition of the British Government, said, if the visitation was not carried out by search, "it would reduce the right itself to a power merely nominal," and the acquiescence in which "would serve rather to mark the sacrifice of a great and precious principle, than to attain the end for which it would be given up." This question seems to have been too long settled, and by her own courts, to be agitated by England now. In the case of the Louis, Lord Stowell, in delivering judgment, said "that no authority can be found which gives any right of visitation or interruption over the vessels and navigation of other States on the high seas, except what the right of war gives to belligerents against neutrals." If we concede to England the right of visitation alone, we concede the right of search along H. of Reps. with it; there is nothing but a flimsy technicality separating them in name, while in practice it is entirely dissipated. Then, by whatever deceptive and alluring name the powers, or rights, conferred under the eighth article of the treaty, mutually upon the two Governments, may be called-the right conferred is the mutual right of search, to be exercised under the "orders of the two Governments." The British minister advised our Government that all further pretensions to the right of search were abandoned. Whether, by this, England meant to visit our ships, irrespective of our wishes, and then shelter the outrage behind the technicality she employed, after attaining all the substantial ends to which a search would lead; or whether she designed to hold the one in terror over us until, by treaty, we should surrender the other to her, is unknown. But certain it is, that, from the correspondence between Lord Ashburton and Mr. Webster, communicated to Congress by the President, it does not appear that the British minister made any demand, or offered any negotiation, to our Government, upon the subject. seems that his Government was satisfied with his own position; while that of America became the mover of the proposition. The stipulation appears to have been the free-will offering of the American Secretary to the cupidity of England. How far the fear that England might refuse the mutuality of the right, unless stipulated for, controlled the concession at this time, is only a matter of conjecture. It The correspondence accompaning the treaty discloses and sustains the fact, that the whole of the eighth article was not only the voluntary concession of the American Government, but that the right of search was the concession intended to be made to the British Government by the terms of that article. In the year 1810, an agreement was entered into between the officers commanding the ships of each Government on the coast of Africa, providing for mutual co-operation in suppressing the slave-trade; and that co-operation being the exercise of the mutual right of search. This agreement was disapproved by this Government, and there it terminated. Pending the correspondence relative to the treaty. at Washington, the Secretary of State calls upon the officer who executed this agreement, for information of its nature. On the 2d of May, 1842, Lieutenant Paine, in a letter to Mr. Webster, says: "As the wish of the State Department seems to be to ascertain the nature of the agreement itself, and the action of myself thereon; and as I wish to forward this view promptly, I shall restrict myself to these points, commencing with the agreement, of which the following is a copy: 'Commander William Tucker, of her Britannic Majesty's sloop Wolverine, and senior officer on the west coast of Africa, and Lieutenant John J. Paine, commanding the United States schooner Grampus, in order to carry into execution, as far as possible, the orders and views of their respective Governments respecting the suppression of the slave-trade, hereby request each other, and agree, to detain all vessels under American colors found to be fully equipped and engaged in the slave-trade; that, if found to be American property, they shall be handed over to the United States schooner Grampus, or any other American cruiser; and that, if found to be Spanish, Portuguese, Brazilian, or English property, to any of her Britannic Majesty's cruisers employed on the west coast of Africa for the suppression of the slave-trade, so far as their respective laws and treaties will permit. 'Signed and exchanged at Sierra Leone this 11th March, 1840. 'JOHN S. PAINE, 'Commanding U. S. schr. Grampus. 'WM. TUCKER, 'Command'g H. B. M. sloop Wolverine, &c.' Comparing this agreement with the eighth arttele of the treaty, it will be seen that the terms of the former suggested the idea of those of the latter; and the practice, under the agreement, leaves us no reason to doubt what was designed by the parties should be that under the treaty. The incorporation of the principle of this agreement into the treaty the adoption of the stipulation as to the mode of "effectually" abolishing the slave-trade-shows an abandonment of the principles hitherto asserted, and the rights before maintained by our Government, and the unconditional surrender to England of her haughty demand of the right of search over our vessels. The arrogance of her demand is miti 27TH CONG....3D SESS. gated only by the fact, that the exercise of the right is under municipal regulations, and not by the law of nations. Upon the communication of this agreement to the American Government, by Lieut. Paine, Mr. Secretary Paulding replies; and, after remarking to him (Paine) that "he has delegated to that of ficer (British) the right to seize vessels under American colors," continues: "Such a delegation of power is not only unauthorized by your instructions, but contrary to the established and well-known principles and policy of your Government, and is, therefore, not sanctioned by the department"-"the great object of the co-operation being to obviate the difficulties of capture, growing out of assuming Portuguese, English, Spanish, or Brazilian colors when overhauled by an American, or American colors when overhauled by a British cruiser. For this purpose, you are authorized to cruise in company and in co-operation with any British vessel of war employed on the slave-coast, in pursuit of objects similar to your own." Lieut. Paine, in communicating this disapproval to the British officer on the 27th April, 1841, says: "From the above extract, you will see that the Secretary of the Navy at Washington is careful to avoid giving countenance to the practice of detaining American vessels, even though they be slavers, unless by American vessels of war. The best, if not the only means of co-operation left, would seem to be exchanging information, or cruising in company." Another proposition was made, in 1841, to re-adopt a similar agreement, which was refused by the same officer; and, in 1842, the agreement was embraced in the treaty stipulation. So far as the President and Senate could go, to give that treaty effect, they have gone. It now remains for the House of Representatives to determine whether, by an appropriation for a squadron on the African coast, they too will concur in the relinquishment of that great and inestimable principle--our absolute immunity from search. England having failed to bully France into its surrender, now seeks quietly to dupe the American Government into an acquiescence of her haughty and insolent demands. And shall the immediate representatives of the people tamely cower before this impudent pretension, or ingloriously embrace the dishonorable terms of peace which England's self-esteem has prescribed? Shall we permit the citizens of our Republic, pursuing their legitimate callings on the high seas, to be pursued by British cruisers-captured, detained, searched, and perhaps carried into port, placed in duress, injured in their business-all for the gratification of knowing that American vessels of war might be permitted to treat the British vessels in the same manner? Never. The right of search is a belligerent right, which, whenever exercised by foreign nations towards the ships of America, is a just cause of war; and it can never be surrendered by treaty stipulations, or otherwise, without dishonor and disgrace to the national character. And the highest duty which a representative of the American people owes to his country, is promptly to reject all and each proposition which seeks to give effect to a treaty surrendering so high a right. Why the arrogant pretensions of England towards the shipping of America should be so readily and cheerfully acknowledged by our Government, is unaccountable. It is true, she has interdicted the slave-trade; but it was not until she had enriched her subjects, and filled the American colonies with slaves against their wishes. She has made the trade piracy; but it was done only to assimilate herself to the wisdom and justice of our own Government, and to follow its example. The British nation had carried on the slavetrade for two centuries-not only to supply her own colonies, but those of France and Spain. Under the first Stuart kings of England, joint stock-companies were chartered with exclusive privileges for the trade. By the treaty of Utrecht, the British traders were entitled to the monopoly of the trade in the dominions of "his Catholic Majesty in America""at the rate of 4,800 negroes yearly, for the space of thirty years successively." On the accession of Charles II, upon the representation that more negroes were needed on the Bri ish plantations in America, he "publicly invited his subjects to the subscription of a new joint-stock company for receiving and carrying on the trade of Africa." In 1703, the State of Massachusetts imposed a heavy duty on the importation of slaves; in 1767, they attempted to establish a duty equivalent to prohibition, The British Treaty-Mr. Meriwether. which was defeated by the council established by the Crown. The Colonial Legislatures of Pennsylvania and New Jersey attempted to interdict the trade by similar duties; but their enactments were rejected by the Crown. Virginia petitioned the Crown to remove all restraints from the governors of that colony, inhibiting their assent to laws checking the slave-trade; and so indignantly was this respectful petition treated, that no answer was given to it. Upon the Declaration of Independence, in 1776, the American Congress passed a resolution against the purchase of slaves imported from Africa. Upon the adoption of the Federal Constitution, the importation of slaves after 1st January, 1808, was prohibited. In 1794, Congress passed a law subjecting to fine and imprisonment any American citizen who engaged in the African slave-trade; and in 1807, a law was passed carrying into effect the clause of the Constitution prohibiting the African slave-trade. The American Government interdicted the foreign slave-trade thirteen years before Great Britain: they had made it "punishable as a crime" some years before; and made the period of non-importation into the Union four years earlier than that assigned by Great Britain for her colonies. Why, then, is it that America must yield so much to this eleventh hour convert against the African slavetrade?-that, proud and insolent as she is, her haughty and arrogant officers shall arrest our vessels on the high seas, open their hatches, muster their crew, inspect their papers, overhaul their cargo, and treat with contumely and contempt the humbly but nobly-born American, to know whether he is violating the laws of America, as a pirate and thief? Is such contumely as this to be borne? It was not until after the peace of 1814 that this right of search was first agitated as the only effectual means of suppressing the slave-trade. In 1816, it was admitted by Lord Castlereagh that the right of search, being a belligerent right, had ceased with the war; and, if only one State resisted the right, it could not be exercised against her. In 1818, an application was made to the American Government to surrender this right by treaty. The proposition was met with signal ability, and repelled most properly, by the then Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams. In conclusion of his reply, he says: "The search by foreign officers, even in time of war, is so obnoxious to the feelings and recollections of this country, that nothing could reconcile them to an extension of it, however qualified or restricted, in time of peace." And it is very much doubted whether, at this time, such a practice is less repulsive to the feelings and recollections of the American people. Notwithstanding the treaty of Ghent was made in 1814, yet up to this time no British states. man has ever dared to assert the exercise of the right of search upon American vessels, except in time of war; and then, as a belligerent right only. In the year 1824, a convention between England and the United States was held, which provided for the mutual right of search and visitation under a variety of restrictions and regulations; which failed to be ratified on account of causes other than those growing out of the exercise of this right. During this negotiation, no intimation was made of the right of visitation and search on the high seas, in time of peace, for any purpose independent of compact. So late as the year 1839, it was avowed by the Duke of Wellington, in the British Parliament, that, as to "searching vessels of the United States for papers, &c., there was every reason to believe that that power would decidedly resist any such attempt on our part." No longer ago than January, 1840, the British Government-in addressing the Haytien Government upon the subject of a law passed by it in 1839, providing that any vessel, whether Haytien or otherwise, found in the act of slave-trading, should be seized and brought into a port for adjudicationheld this language: "Now, Hayti has undoubtedly a full right to make such an enactment about her own citizens and ships; but her Majesty's Govern. ment apprehend that Hayti has no right to legislate for the ships and subjects or citizens of other States." "That, in time of peace, no ships belonging to one State have a right to search and detain ships sailing under the flag of, and belonging to, other States, without the permission of such States, which permission is generally signified by treaty; and, if Haytien cruisers were to stop, search, and detain merchant vessels sailing under the flag of, It was only as late as the year 1841 that England ever asserted this right, and then qualifiedly. Lord Aberdeen says: "In certain latitudes, and for a particular object, the vessels referred to are visited-not as American, but either as British vessels engaged in unlawful traffic, and carrying the flag of the United States for a criminal purpose; or as belonging to States which have ceded the right of search to Great Britain, or as piratical outlaws." Upon this visitation, search, capture, and detention follow; and the vessel is carried into port for adjudication, upon the discretion of a British officer, and before a British court. If, upon trial, it proves to be an American vessel, and engaged in lawful business, she is discharged; but England, having the right to search her, pays neither the expenses of detention, nor the cost of suit; and these frequently amount to as much, and more, than the vessel and cargo are worth. It is thus that the rights of our citizens are prostrated by England; and who may not see the policy she might have in view by thus acting, when she sought to monopolize the commerce of any country, and to drive our vessels from it? And the only remuneration which our Government or its citizens receive from this outrage, is the assurance that England did not visit this vessel as an American vessel! And now, under these circumstances, with such a weight of authority to sustain us-as though the act was too shameless to bear its avowal openly, by an introduction in a treaty-this important right of search has been surrendered to the power and discretion of the Executive, to be bartered away to England, under his orders, for a corresponding right from the British Government! The Govern. ment of the United States has gone further than any other nation in suppressing the African slavetrade. It was in the advance in declaring it pira cy; and it has ever been a matter of desire to induce other nations to attach the punishment and odium of the crime to the act. But the United States desired to protect her citizens against the possibility of abuse; and, in doing so, it was only necessary to distinguish between piracy, as a mu nicipal regulation, and as a crime against the laws of nations. We have ever adhered to the difference of rights created by this difference in principle. The offender against our laws is subject to be tried in our own courts alone; and the right to search our vessels on the high seas belongs to no other people on earth but the officers of our Government, and its exercise by any other must and will be re garded as the exercise of a belligerent right, and will be treated accordingly. The utmost that the law of nations has ever warranted, or justified, was the right of public armed vessels cruising for pirates on the high seas, to the mere authority of approaching suspicious vessels for the purpose of ascertain ing their real character, by any means short of ac tual visitation and search. If the vessel should prove to be engaged in illegal trade, under the laws of nations the search is justified; but if, on the con trary, she is engaged in lawful pursuits, the visit ation is illegal, the search unjustified, and the party performs both at the hazard of the conse quences. These are the grounds on which the American Government has always stood, and al ways been justified, even by England herself, except when her interests were different. And now the plain question presents itself-whether we shall abandon these high and noble grounds at the inso lent dictation of England? Why should we aban don them? Have our vessels been engaged in the slave-trade to such an extent that extraordinary measures have to be resorted to, to stop that pirati cal business? No. For many years, I am informed, no American vessel has been thus employed. Why, then, when our treaty stipulations have been observed with a religious faith-when our vessels have never been engaged in the violation of the laws of our own Government-why is it that the laws of nations are to be wholly revolutionized, and the rights of our citizens on the high seas tram 27TH CONG......3D SESS. pled under foot by the insolence of British officers? It is too much the character of Americans to bear injuries while they are tolerable, than promptly to resent them when offered. England knows this, and, by a gradual usurpation of our rights, she hopes to attain all she demands; protesting that she intends us no indignity, but all the while heaping insult upon injury. From the speech of Sir Robert Peel, in the British Parliament, we are plainly told what the American Government may expect. The right of visitation, he says, has not and will not be surrendered by his Government. He speaks truly when he says so; the treaty guaranties it to him. But he assumes a loftier ground than this; and tells you that he holds it by higher authority, and intends to exercise it. 1 suppose that England will exercise the right just whensoever she pleases. Notwithstanding she has, time and again, said that no such right existed, or should be exercised towards her vessels, she will assert it and exercise it towards our ships. Let her do it: but the first footstep made on our vessels by her officers, to carry out her asserted right of visitation, will be with me a sufficient cause for war; and I would vote forthwith a decJaration of war against her. And while I will not vote one gun to carry out this abominable treaty, I am prepared to vote one thousand guns for the African coast, to show England that she shall not tread the deck of the most worthless vessel in our whole commercial marine. I know it is a difficult matter to arouse the pub. lic mind against the insidious encroachments of England upon our rights. The great mass of our people are wholly unacquainted with the injuries sustained by our seafaring people, in subjecting them to England's visitation. Already do we hear it proclaimed that British officers should be permitted to visit American ships, to see that they are not engaged in illicit trade. But apply this principle to the humblest citizen in this republic-sub jecting his domicil to visitation-and war would follow forthwith. The deck of an American ship is American territory. Who dares invade it, as England proposes to do? Were a British officer to enter the dwelling of an American citizen, and upon American territory, to demand proof of his occupation, his pursuits, and purposes, and, upon the receipt of information wholly unsatisfactory, to proceed to search his dwelling, to ascertain whether he concealed stolen goods, or murderers,-where is there a man who would not step boldly forth to punish the aggression? Nay, who would not raise his voice for war against that government which would thus insult and injare our citizens? And yet England does all this, and more, towards our fellow-citizens on the high seas; and we tamely acquiesce in it all. Why should we be less jealous of the rights of the mariner than we are of those of the landsman? The question of the right of search is an abstruse onebut little thought of, and less studied, by our people. But it should be brought to the reflections of every mind; and, when this is done, there is no fear as to the result. We are a great agricultural people. Our agriculture is rendered valuable by our commerce, which bears our cotton, wheat, and breadstuffs to every civilized nation. Our manufactures are beginning to compete successfully with those of the British nation, in many countries. America is England's hated and feared rival: and now, to sweep our commerce from the seas, and monopolize it with the vessels of her own subjects, has become the great object of solicitude by the British Crown. Our vessels, wherever found, are to be visited, as a matter of right. If the American is not most obsequious to the impudent and insolent demand of the British officer, as a matter of right, his vessel is to be searched. If everything on board does not suit the notions of the officerwho enters the ship with a determination not to be suited as a matter of right, the vessel may be seized, carried into port, and tried before a court, (all as a matter of right,) and the American ruined by the burden of costs, the delays, and injuries to his business. And all this is justified, because England had the right to visit the ship, and these were the consequences of the visit. No, sir: place this right of search where the law of nations has placed it; that, if you put foot on an American deck, you do it at the hazard of the consequences; and, if we permit you to do it with impunity, it will be a matter of grace from us, and not of right on your part. Maintain your old ground, and you will preserve and protect your commerce; but The British Treaty-Mr. Meriwether. yield to England what she demands, and your commerce will be destroyed: for your people will not engage in it, when almost certain ruin awaits their enterprise and industry. Eventually, we shall have to choose between a ruined commerce and a war. A different view seems to have been taken of the character and effect of the concession made to England by the United States, by the President of the United States. In his message communicating the treaty to the Senate, he says that, by its stipula tions, no change has been made in the law of nations; but that each nation is left to execute its own laws, separately and independently of the other. Conceding the construction assumed, we find, in the reasons assigned for this new arrangement, as much cause for national dishonor as would be entailed by the surrender believed, in fact, to have been made. The President says: "The treaty obligations subsisting between the two countries for the suppression of the African slave-trade, and the complaints made to this Government within the last three or four years--many of them but too well-founded-of the visitation, seizure, and detention of American vessels on that coast by British cruisers, could not but form a delicate and highly important part of the negotiations which have now been held."-"Interference with a merchant vessel by an armed cruiser, is always a delicate proceeding, apt to touch the point of national honor, as well as to affect the interests of individuals. It has been thought, therefore, expedient--not only in accordance with the treaty of Ghent, but, at the same time, as removing all pretext, on the part of others, for violating the immunities of the American flag upon the seas, as they exist and are defined by the law of nations-to enter into the articles now submitted to the Senate." Thus it seems that the right of search, as practised by England upon our vessels, was regarded as of such great importance, as to constitute a material subject of negotiation. It was, indeed, a cause of complaint on the part of the American Government, and had, before this negotiation, been made a subject of special representation to the British Government. We have seen how it was received, and what special pleading resorted to, to justify it in the past, and to affirm and sustain its repetition in the future. And now, to avoid that repetition, (which no denial of the right, on our part, could check,) our Government formally, and for that reason, accepts the terms stipulated in the treaty. The "immunities of the American flag, as they exist and are defined by the laws of nations," being disregarded by Eng and, we are compelled "to enter into the articles" of the treaty, to secure their recognition in the future. Under such circumstances as those which surrounded our Government, (the full extent of which was known to us,) in what manner did it become a nation, jealous of her honor and self-respect, to act? When we recollect that the treaty of Ghent, under which our obligations arose, had been in existence more than a quarter of a century--that England, during nearly all that period, had never asserted the right which she now pretends to-that no such stipulation as the one now adopted was ever before proposed in any treaty, and that no necessity was ever presumed before to exist for its adoption,-when our Government had been insulted by England's past conduct, and was now menaced by her present attitude-there was no other alternative left to the American Government, but an unqualified refusal to listen to any terms of negotiation as to the right of search, or of any substitution for i There was but one course which our Government could, in honor, pursue: and that was, to say to England that the right of visitation and search did not belong to her, and that she should not exercise it over our vessels. Instead of adopting this course, however, terms of compromise are adopted, by which the United States agree to maintain a squadron of not less than 80 guns, for five years, on the African coast, and longer, if neither Government object, at an annual cost of several hundred thousand dollars. This is the price we pay England for her impudent pretensions; and the tribute we render her for suspending for the time the haughty power she assumes, to reign mistress of the seas. This is what our country gains in point of honor-our vessels acquire a greater immunity, in being exempted from the visitations, searches, detentions, and insults of the British cruisers, during that time. The country would rather have paid millions for the defence of its H. of Reps. rights, than to have contributed one cent to buy its peace from England. And after the period stipulated, should either Government recede from the further continuance of this tribute, England is remitted back to her original assumption of right, strengthened by the stipulations of this treaty. And whensoever she shall think fit, her arbitrary will will be emboldened to demand new terms, and to exact more rigorously a compliance with her haughty requisitions. The postponement of the issue promised through the homage of this tribute, is but weakening an established and indisputable right. Now is the time to settle that issue; now is the hour when England should be made to know that the rights of American merchants and seamen, on the high seas, should be respected by her. No temporizing policy should be resorted to, for a moment; no paltering with the nation's interests should be countenanced, to gain a temporary quiet. An American Congress desires to speak out boldly and decidedly as to our rights; to renounce this stipulation; to assume the grounds always before maintained by national honor; and to allow no interference from England or elsewhere. If it were respectful to ourselves to debate the course of England, after the termination of that period, limiting the payment of our tribute, I should say that there was no guaranty, after all the money we have paid her, and all the humility we had shown to her, that we would not again have causes of complaint "of the visitation, seizure, and detention of American vessels by British cruisers." There is no assurance that we should not be compelled again to treat with her; and that, too, under circumstances of deeper humiliation than those which attended the late treaty. But I feel no disposition to entertain any such proposition. I renounce now, and at all times, the terms of submission which extort the tribute from our people; and peremptorily refuse the execution of a treaty so discreditable to the patriotism and the honor of the country. With one code of national law, under which she enforces protection to her own citizens when assailed-with another, by which she extorts the surrender of similar rights from other nationsthrough her diplomacy in both-she has, in her recent negotiations, left the American Government the mere creature of subserviency to her will. Conceding to the Executive the truth of his own construction of this ill-starred treaty, that its stipulations were dictated for the purpose of "removing all pretext" on the part of England for violating the immunities of the American flag upon the seas"-yet it is from the fact, that it is a treaty stipulation to purchase our exemption from violations of the "immunities of the American flag," and that we have to bargain for the recognition of our rights, established by the laws of nations, that renders its support by the representatives of the people inconsistent with the respect due to our common country. Our Government was under no obligation to stipulate with any power on earth, how the "immunities of our flag," and our rights under the laws of nations, should be preserved. We were bound to place the honor of our nation in the keeping of no one. If the American people are unable to preserve both, let them by treaty relapse into a state of pupilage to England; if we are wanting in gallantry to defend our flag, let it be desecra ted by the forbearance of England; if we are wanting in honor to execute our treaties, let England coerce their execution, by the multiplication of pledges. But, if the American people entertain yet any self-respect, let them scout a treaty which makes the defence of the one, and the execution of the other, a matter of bargain with a crowned head of Europe. Apart from the surrender of the great principle involved, by an appropriation for the squadron on the African coast, is the extravagantly large and unnecessary expenditure which must be made to meet that provision of the treaty. For all commercial purposes, it is utterly useless and unavailing. By the report of the Secretary of the Navy made to the Senate on 30th December, 1842, there will be required for that service two sloops of the first class, and four brigs or schooners-carrying, in all, 84 guns. The cost of the vessels will be $424,242; the annual expenses of every kind in supporting the squadron, is $281,182. This squadron is to be maintained for five years, and as much longer as desirable; and until, on our part, both Houses of Congress, with the sanction of the President, shall order its discontinuance. The annual expenditures for the five years will amount to $1,405,910; |