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

"No higher or other tolls or rates of feriiage than what are or shall be payable by natives, shall be demanded on either side; and no duties shall be payable on any goods which shall merely be carried over any of the portages or carrying-places on either side, for the purpose of being immediately reimbarked and carried to some other place or places. But as by this stipulation it is only meant to secure to each party a free passage across the portages on both sides, it is agreed that this exemption from duty shall extend only to such goods as are carried in the usual and direct road across the portage, and are not attempted to be in any manner sold or exchanged during their passage across the same; and proper regulations may be established to prevent the possibility of any frauds in this respect."

"As this article is intended to render, in a great degree, the local advantages of each party common to both, and thereby to promote a disposition favorable to friendship and good neighborhood, it is agreed that the respective Governments will mutually promote this amicable intercourse, by causing speedy and impartial justice to be done, and necessary protection to be extended, to all who may be concerned therein."

Now, sir, the first thing I have to say is, that this expressly, in the plainest words and for the strongest reasons, gives to both nations the free and common use of all existing portages.

"No duties shall be payable on any goods which shall merely be carried over any of the portages or carrying-places on either side, for the purpose of being immediately re-embarked and carried to some other place or places. But, as by this stipulation it is only meant to secure to each party a free passage across the portages on both sides, it is agreed," &c.

Yes, sir, it makes all of them-the Grand Portage and all--free, open, and common to both nations, and to all of both. It does so for reasons worthy of the age and the men. While we are inflaming ourselves about the ambition of England, and the cruelty and rapacity of her traders; while we sit and listen to denunciations of the negotiator of the new treaty for allowing those traders to row their canoes up the same rapid, and carry them on their backs over the same portage, with our own, as if the liberties of America were sold, just listen to that strain of higher mood, in which the grand and manly reasons are assigned in Jay's treaty for this self-same thing:

"As this article is intended to render, in a great degree, the local advantages of each party common to both, and thereby to promote a disposition favorable to friendship and good neighborhood, it is agreed," &c.

You see, therefore, sir, that if it is a crime or a blunder to open these portages, it is no new one. The treaty by which the honorable Senator tries this treaty, had opened them before; it had opened them all; it had opened the Grand Portage, six miles south of Pigeon river, just as much and as widely as it opened all the rest. It opens "all on both sides," in so many words; and it opened that, or it opened not one.

The next remark I make on this subject is, that Jay's treaty expressly declares that no duties shall be exacted for the mere transit of goods across these portages. If they are brought within our territory for sale--if the right of portage is sought to be converted into a right to open a market and set up a shop, and thus to sell within American territory, instead of transporting across it, then duties are to be paid. But the right of portage, direct and bona fide, is free, and embarrassed by no duty.

Just so it is, and subject to just the same limitations, in the new treaty Portages it makes free and open. Goods, therefore, which are carried across these portages, in the usual manner, and in good faith, will be subject to no transit duty. But goods brought into American territory to sell; goods which shall be arrested and taken out of di rect and fair transit across, and exposed for sale, will be subject to duty at the pleasure of Congress. Nothing is made free but the right to carry across. He who, under color of using that privilege, exerts another, puts himself out of the exemption of the treaty.

If, then, sir, it is a crime, or blunder, to allow the Canadian trader to carry merchandise to the great northwest beyond the line of our extreme boundary, and bring furs back, free of transit duty,

The Oregon Bill-Mr. Morehead.

John Jay set the example of it. He did not think it worth while to harass such enterprise as that by duties on blankets, and gunpowder, and rum, and hominy, and wildcat skins! Following the example of all civilization, he thought "dispositions favorable to friendship and good neighborhood" cheaply purchased by such courtesy as this. Even if the portages had all been on the American side of the line, as they were not-for this, after all, is only a right of free transit given to England for a right of free transit given by her-he would have disdained exactions so unproductive, so vexatious, so universally discountenanced by all international decencies of intercourse.

Since, then, sir, the new treaty and the old, in the matter of these portages, are just alike, you may wonder, perhaps, what the honorable Senator really means when he says that the new treaty brings back the British traders whom the old one had sent away. Over and over again he has made this declaration. Long, long (says he) had these tribes languished to return to the Grand Portage; negoti. ation after negotiation had been tried for that purpose in vain; there they were up at Kamanistiquia and the unclassical Dog river, stretching out their arms "ullerioris ripa amore," when the American Secretary put himself at their head-a Moses, a Joshua, (for he makes them both,) and led them back. Now, what in the world does all this really mean? Sir, without promising to be able to tell you that, I will lay the exact facts before the Senate, and leave you to judge for yourselves.

For many years, then, before 1783, and down to 1803, the Canadian traders not only travelled across the Grand Portage and other portages on their way west from Lake Superior, but they had their general depot at the Grand Portage. They there had storehouses, dwelling-houses, and all the necessary fixtures and permanent establishments of a trading-post. Well, sir, this place was and is within the territory of the United States. The middle of Pigeon river is the boundary line-for several miles, at least-up from its mouth, by the treaty of 1783, by the treaty of 1842, and by the concession of the honorable Senator from Missouri; and this place was and is six miles south of that line. In 1803, (probably some time before,) a rumor reached that post that the American collector of customs at Michilimackinac intended to levy duties upon all the merchandise and property there, upon the ground that they were within the United States; and thereupon the traders broke up and abandoned the depot, and established a new one at Kamanistiquia, since called Fort William, fifty miles northeast from the Grand Portage. There it has been ever since.

And now, sir, I deny that Jay's treaty caused the removal of this depot to Fort William, or that the new treaty will bring it back to the Grand Portage. The rights and the liabilities of these traders under the two treaties are identically the same. They have had no Pharoah, and have found no Moses. Why, sir, does the honorable Senator say that, under the new treaty, they can come back to the Grand Portage, re-establish their depot, build shops and houses, store their goods, and buy and sell as they did before 1803 Certainly not; for the treaty expressly declares a line of boundary which brings that portage within the United States; and it secures these British subjects no right whatever in it, but to use it as a carrying-place for the direct mere transportation of things over in good faith-a naked, strict right of way. What, then, can they do under this treaty, does he say? Why, they can build their depot on the north bank of Pigeon river, near its mouth, opposite the Grand Portage; and thence they can travel across the Grand Portage, and all the other portages, to the Lake of the Woods. Very well; be it so. Could they not have done the same thing under Jay's treaty? Exactly, exactly. Was not the Pigeon river the true boundary for at least several miles from its mouth in 1794? Why, the honorable Senator admits it. It is the true boundary, he admits, established by the treaty of 1783; and it has been the true boundary ever since. Then, sir, the next day after the treaty of 1783 was made-the next day after Jay's treaty was made, and at any and every moment from that time to this, these traders could have built their depot on the north side of Pigeon river, and travelled to their hearts' content over grand portages and little ones, to the tune of the Canadian boat-song, to the Lake of the Woods. And that is everything they can

Senate.

do by the new treaty! And yet the Secretary of State is said to have realized the achievements and blended the separate fame of Moses and Joshua, by leading back the British traders whom Jay had driven out.

It is true, undoubtedly, that the new treaty for the first time expressly ascertains Pigeon river to be the boundary. It for the first time enables all parties on both sides to make all their arrangements upon, and with a certain knowledge of, that important fact. It puts an end to the long and harassing doubt whether the Dog lake, the Pigeon river, or the Fond du Lac, is the point on Lake Superior from which the line should set out westward. In that sense, and to that extent, it apprizes British and American traders of their exact rights and exact privileges, and allows them to govern themselves accordingly. In that sense, and to that extent, it enables them to do what they could not prudently do before. But does the honorable Senator only mean, then, to complain that an important unsettled line has been settled, and to this extent settled rightly? To that it comes at last, and to nothing else.

I regret, sir, that the attention of the Senate has been withdrawn so long from the consideration of the bill for the occupation of the Oregon, (which is the subject properly before you,) by any merely collateral matter, however important. But it was the honorable Senator from Missouri who first turned aside from the defence of the bill to attack the treaty of 1842. Approving with my whole heart and whole reason that great arrangement of peace and of honor, I do not conceive that I am in fault for losing sight of the bill upon your table to follow him. I only hope the episode may not bear a too disproportionate relation to the main performance. And yet, why is a discussion of the treaty which you have just concluded irrevelant to the immediate question before you? If that treaty has been believed, by the thoughtful and good of both countries, to go far and do much to restore and confirm the kind regards of the two great branches of the English name and blood-if it has composed one of their more exasperating and inveterate differences if it has sweetened their temper and smoothed their brow-if, in the mode of_entering on and continuing that negotiation, England has been observed to abate somewhat of her pride and of her distance, and to be willing to meet frankly and half-way, in confidence and in honor, her daughter, her rival, so emulous of her own glory, so proud of her own lettered and martial fame-if the result of a negotiation so begun, so conducted, may fairly be reckoned among the triumphs of reason and of civilization, a victory of peace, a tribute to the duty of peace,--how solicitous should we be not now, by the thoughtless act of a moment, to undo all that it has done; to disappoint all that it has promised! How solicitous, especially, to do nothing which, while it endangers our territory, shall sully our honor!

SPEECH OF MR. MOREHEAD,

OF KENTUCKY.

In Senate of the United States, January 23, 1843.On the Oregon bill.

Mr. MOREHEAD said that he had, a few days since, submitted to the Senate a resolution calling upon the Executive for information as to certain alleged acts of the British Government, by which it has exerted an exclusive jurisdiction over the Oregon Territory. The official answer to that call was conveyed in the communication which had just been read to the Senate.

[The communication itself was, in effect, as follows: The Secretary of State says that a letter from Thomas J. Farnham, dated 4th January, 1840, appears to have been transmitted to that department, by the Secretary of War, in the month of May following; and that, on the 6th of the same month, a letter was transmitted to the American minister in London, with extracts from that communication. As the President was desirous of knowing whether the intelligence contained in Mr. Farnham's letter relative to large grants, by the British Government to the Hudson Bay Company, of a large and valuable tract of land in the Oregon Territory, and of supposed grants and sales of those lands by that company to individuals, was well founded, the minister was instructed to make application to the proper quarter for information on the subject. In presenting the matter to the Brit

27TH CONG....3D SESS.

ish Government, he was assured that no such grant of land had been made to the Hudson Bay Company; and that the only grant which had been made to that company was a grant of exclusive trade with the Indians in certain parts of North America for a further term of twenty-one years, on the surrender of the former grant.]

Mr. M. proceeded to say that his object, in the call which he had made, was to place before the Senate, for the further course of this discussion, authentic statements of fact in relation to the report so generally credited, that grants of land had been made by the British Government within the Oregon Territory. He had desired more particularly to have in the hands of the Senate the letter which accompanied the Secretary's communication-a letter to the Secretary of War, from a gentleman at its date in the Territory, and employed by the Government in an official capacity. It is of the year 1839 or 1840, and mentions as a fact that which was then and there believed to be true--that the British Government had granted to the Hudson Bay Company a large and valuable tract of land in the neighborhood of the straits of Juan de Fuca, and within the limits of the Oregon Territory.

I learn with pleasure (said Mr. M.) the steps which were thought advisable as to calling the attention of the British Government to this allegation, and their official denial of the fact thus stated. The disavowal satisfies me that the supposed grant has not been made; but it by no means convinces me that everything but the form of such grants is not most real. The disclaimer does not alter the acts of the British Government, except as to their direct and open responsibility; nor the possession of the Hudson Bay Company, so far as all the real purposes of possession are to be accomplished. I hold the disclaimer only material as to the forms under which these things are done. Setting aside, however, that point of the allegation, I think we have abundant proofs that Great Britain, directly or indirectly, exercises exclusive jurisdiction and enjoyment of the Territory; that if she has not already dispossessed, she is rapidly and surely dispossessing us; and that she therefore completely violates the convention, in point of fact, while she respects its forms.

The words of the third article of the convention of 1818 are as follows:

"It is agreed that any country that may be claimed by either party on the northwest coast of America, westward of the Stony mountains, shall, together with its harbors, bays, and creeks, and the navigation of all rivers within the same, be free and open, for the term of ten years from the date of the signature of the present convention, to the vessels, citizens, and subjects of the two powers; it being well understood that this agreement is not to be construed to the prejudice of any claim which either of the two high contracting parties may have to any part of the said country; nor shall it be taken to affect the claims of any other power or state to any part of the said country: the only object of the high contracting parties, in that respect, being to prevent disputes and differences among themselves."

Now, sir, this is claimed and construed as a treaty of joint occupation; and that joint occupation temporary, for it is to last but ten years.

A joint and a temporary occupation would, one would say, exclude the idea of permament forts and fixed settlements-things which mark the very opposite of the only two forms of possession, permanent and temporary. Under the latter, tents may be set up, shantees erected, and cabins or other such rude and occasional shelters be built for momentary use. But the felling of forests, the construction of regular habitations, the fencing in of fields, the regular cultivation and improvement of the soil, the fitting up of saw-mills, the assemblage of workshops, and of many other of the appliances of fixed sojourn and employment, certainly denote, espe cially with forts to protect them, something more than transient possession, and constitute, and are meant to constitute, a lasting, and, of course, exclusive occupation of the places thus appropriated. Now, what are the proceedings of the great and permitted agent of these British infringements-the Hudson Bay Company? The report of Captain Nathaniel J. Wyeth (No. 101 Indian Affairs) shall tell you.

Here Mr. M. read to the following purport from Captain Wyeth:

"The company have now their chief establishment

The Oregon Bill-Mr. Morehead.

at Fort Vancouver, on the north side of the Columbia, about eighty miles above its mouth; for Fort George, (Astoria,) the older station, is now a mere look-out, where little trade is done.

"At Vancouver are stationed about two hundred men, usually employed in agricultural or mechanical labor. There is a saw-mill about six miles above it, which supplies lumber for themselves and for the Sandwich Islands. The fort is a stockade, with accommodations for the people employed at it, two large guns not in use, and such defences merely as are necessary against the Indians. To this point all the supplies for the fur-trade are sent, and here the returns are collected."

He proceeds to enumerate and describe the other British posts in Oregon: Wallahwallah, Oknugen, and Colville, on the Columbia; Flathead, on the river of that name; the Big Wood post, at the mouth of Big Wood; and a station not permanently occupied at the mouth of Umbiquoi.

He proceeds to relate the arts by which American competition is excluded or crushed, and the traders driven away. Their parties, he says, frequently in violation of treaties, pass within the limits of the United States on the Missouri. This was done in 1833, 1834, 1835, and 1836, contrary, it was said, to the instructions of the company, but probably with their consent.

He further says: "I have been informed that the British Government have given an assurance to the Hudson Bay Company that they will not surrender any part of the country north of the Columbia; or, if they do so, they will remunerate them for any establishments they may have made in that part of it."

He proceeds to give an account of the younger and entirely agricultural settlement of Wallumette, on the south of the Columbia, where some twenty or thirty men, formerly in the employment of the company, cultivate small farms.

He concludes as follows:

"In conclusion, I will observe, that the measures of this company have been conceived with wisdom, steadily pursued, and have been well seconded by their Government, and the success has been complete; and, without being able to charge on them any gross violations of the existing treaties, a few years will make the country west of the mountains as completely English as they can desire. Already the Americans are unknown as a nation; and, as individuals, their power is despised by the natives of the land. A population is growing out of the occupancy of the country, whose prejudices are not with us; and, before many years, they will decide to whom the country shall belong, unless, in the mean time, the American Government make their power felt and seen to a greater degree than has yet been the case.'

The statements of Mr. Slacum (an agent of the Government, whose report may be found in the same body of documents and same number) are still minuter, but to the same general effect.

He gives an account of the formal surrender of Fort George (Astoria) in 1818, in conformity with the treaty of Ghent, and the ceremonies with which the British agents passed it into our hands. The fact itself goes far to mark an admission of our claim of sovereignty. The fort itself was soon after destroyed by fire, said to have been put by

the Indians.

His visit marks a considerable progress of things since the time to which Mr. Wyeth's description applies. "Fort Vancouver occupies (in 1837) double

the old space. There are thirty-nine buildings

within, and forty-nine cabins under its walls; a large barn, with seven other buildings attached; an hospital and boat-house on the river; a saw-mill, employing twenty-eight men, and cutting above two thousand feet of timber daily, &c. The farm contains three thousand acres in cultivation, employing one hundred laborers. The whole number of persons attached to the establishment is from seven hundred and fifty to eight hundred. The farm produced in 1837 eight thousand bushels of wheat; five thousand five hundred bushels of barley; six thousand bushels of oats; nine thousand bushels of peas; fourteen thousand bushels of potatoes; and large quantities of other crops. They had a large threshing machine; a distillery; (discon tinued;) a grist mill; a stock of one thousand black cattle; seven hundred hogs; two hundred sheep; near five hundred horses; and forty yoke of working oxen." [In short, it would appear to be pretty much such a farm as the famous one of old Mr.

Senate.

Coke, (the Earl of Leicester,) in England-an establishment about as much like a permanent settlement as his.]

I might, sir, (proceeded Mr. MOREHEAD,) multiply quotations; but these are enough to show that, under the name and cover of the Hudson Bay Company, the British Government is in actual, and regular, and exclusive possession of this territory. It is entirely under the control of that great association, at whose back the Government itself stands, whenever there is need. They have not only turned your joint possession out of doors, but systematically set savage spies upon your steps, if you wander towards your ancient tenement. They unite against you all the Indian tribes, poison their minds against you, and train them on to a mur. derous hostility. They have, indeed, taken, in all respects, those stealthy and irresponsible methods of guile which (skilful nation as they are) they know perfectly how to employ, when more available than force. Forbearing to alarm you by any show of strengih, and to rouse you by any open contravention of the treaty, they have yet, without an effort, (husbanding their own resources, and not calling out yours,) through the commercial mechanism of a powerful and enterprising company, and its farspreading agents and posts, accomplished, to a great extent, everything that they could wish, or we dread. They have swept the country of its rich furs, obtained a complete ascendency over its tribes, kept you off, started new modes of life more permanent than those which have failed, and, in short, got so long a start upon you in the race of possession, that you must at once exert yourself, if you would not be distanced. Are all these things to go on, until she comes to found a new title upon the very length of the wrong, and bar you forever by pleading the statute of limitations?

Nor, sir, is all this to be escaped by saying that these are the acts of the Hudson Bay Company, and not of the British Government. They are done under the sanction of that Government, and they are the surest means of achieving its purposes. They form its system of territorial encroachment almost everywhere, and especially against all nations capable of resisting direct attack. They are done by its subjects-not wandering outcasts merely, but a numerous body, organized and chartered, gifted by the Government with high privi. leges, and strictly accountable to it. Unquestionably, if such a body, watched over as it is by the British Government, pursues, for a series of years, measures so admirably fitted to break up our access to that country, and all that common enjoyment of it which the convention of 1818 stipulates, Britain, to whose advantage against us all these acts of her great association turn-Britain, whose surest system of encroachment and dispossession they form -Britain, who takes from that company, as its mistress and sovereign, all that it can snatch from usBritain, I say, must be held, in effect, to do all these things, let her evasively disavow them as much as she will.

Referring to the British act of Parliament of July 2, 1821, the Senator from Massachusetts quoted its fourth section to show that it expressly refused to give any such license to trade in the Oregon Ter ritory, to the prejudice or exclusion of any citizens of the United States who may engage in the trade there. And he cited the sixth section of the same act, to show that, in setting up there the jurisdiction of their own Canadian courts, they had expressly excepted such places as were within any civil Gov. ernment of the United States.

[Here Mr. CHOATE reminded Mr. M. that the British Government had distinctly declared that the purpose of this act was limited to British subjects, and not meant to include Americans.]

Mr. M. continued. I am aware of their disclaimer: but I regard it as of no great importance what they say in these diplomatic interchanges of the best reasons they can find to justify the policy which they are resolved to pursue. Their acts we know; and are perfectly able to judge of as plain ones as these, let their declarations be what they may. And now, what is the law that I have stated? Very fair in seeming, and very considerate of our rights. It says that it is to extend to no place within any civil government of the United States. Well, they know perfectly well that we have set up no eivil jurisdiction whatever in that entire country; and they have thus far taken care that we shall have nobody there to set it up over; so that they know that they apply their jurisdiction, by this act, to the entire country.

27TH CONG.... 3D SESS.

It is clear, then, what England's interpretation of joint occupancy means. Her practice defines it; and it is an exclusive occupancy by her. A "com. mon possession with us," means her having a number of forts; "a free enjoyment by both the high contracting parties," signifies the exclusive fur and lumber trade, saw-mills, hospitals, &c.; to "hunt and to fish" intends, beyond doubt, farms of 3,000 acres, worked by 100 laborers. And then what cautious equity about infringing your jurisdiction, when she has already taken such excellent care that there should be nobody there for you to extend it over! If she meant fairly, surely these things would not be done; and 1 hold the entire series of her acts, and the manifest designs which they are every day advancing, as an utter and systematic infraction of the treaty by her. In confirmation of this, Mr. M. read a further extract from Captain Wyeth's statement, detailing the proceedings of the Hudson Bay Company.

And now, what says she as to these settlements, and the permanency of claim to them, which she recognises as obtained by those making them?

In the negotiations of 1827, between Mr. Gallatin, on our part, and Messrs. Huskisson and Addington on hers, the latter, on this point, thus declare the intentions of their Government:

"To the interests and establishments which British industry and enterprise have created, Great Britain owes protection. That protection will be given, both as regards settlement and freedom of trade and navigation, with every attention not to infringe the co-ordinate rights of the United States: it being the desire of the British Government, so long as the joint occupancy continues, to regulate its own obligations by the same rules which govern the obligations of every other occupying party." Protection, then, will be given to these establishments, "both as to settlement and trade." Here, then, are "establishments" and "settlements," valu able and fixed possessions, which England declares herself bound to protect: and this is the joint occupancy! A powerful exclusion on the one hand, and "settlements" and "establishments" and "creations of British industry and enterprise" on the other.

But that "protection" she will render "with every attention not to infringe the co-ordinate rights of the United States." Oh, of course not! Great Britain never infringes any co-ordinate rights of others-never encroaches upon anybody anywhere! No, never! Her scrupulousness in this respect is celebrated over the whole earth, not only upon this continent, but as far as India and China. And then it is so easy for her to reconcile our rights of joint Occupancy with this assurance of protecting her subjects of the Hudson Bay Company in whatever they have "created by their enterprise and indus try"-all their "settlements and establishments!"

Sir, I held the proceedings of her company most unequivocal; and I urged that her long permission of them was a sanction which made them abundantly her own. But this declaration I take to be an explicit assumption of all these progressive acts of possession-a recognition affirming all that possession, and encouraging her settlers to go on and add whatever other "interests" "British industry and enterprise" can "create."

What, then, are you to do? All admit the rapid tendency of her measures completely and finally to dispossess you. The Senator from Massachusetts says, "if she takes possession, so should we." I agree with him, and think I have shown that she has done so. This bill will but do it equally on our part. It but goes, as we should at least go, pari passu with her. I hold the formal grant of lands to be no more than she has already, in effect, practised. But we can at least give with a condition. Shall she say that she will make settlers whole, and may not we? Can she promise, without an infraction of the convention, that she will make good the establishments of her settlers, and shall not we? Make then no positive grants, but only promise, as she does.

As to our title, the common opinion of the entire Senate makes no doubt of it. Do you intend to abandon it? Does even Great Britain think of doing so with her flimsy claim? When did she ever yield such a pretension, except for a large equivalent? She nourishes no idea of receding from her claim, but takes every measure the most skilful to enforce and to insure it. Hence the train of measures that she is pursuing.

The question then is but, at last, of negotiation or war. Of course, I prefer the former; but, much as

State Debts-Mr. Merrick.

I love peace-greatly as I should deplore a breach with that kindred nation-than to yield to this encroachment, I will accept far rather the sad choice of arms. I may say this the rather, because neither my feelings nor my taste have ever led me to rail against Britain. I love that great ration for her noble institutions, her laws, (the freest in the world except our own,) her valor, her policy, her social greatness, her freedom, the venerable mother of

ours.

But I am jealous of the gigantic progress of her power, her vast designs and grasping temper.

On either continent, and in the remotest shores, she stretches towards a universal empire. Africa feels her; Syria receives her garrisons; on either side of our continent she threatens every shore; and, while she spreads out a new dominion in the great islands of the South Sea, she dispossesses the descendants of the great Mogul, and breaks the commercial wall which has so long separated China from the rest of the world.

It is time to abandon our supineness; it has already placed us at disadvantage enough. We must proceed as Britain proceeds. Do not violate the treaty, but send on your people to settle and defend the country; and give them assurances that they will be protected.

REMARKS OF MR. MERRICK,

OF MARYLAND.

In Senate, February 25th, 1843.-Upon the resolutions offered by MCDUFFIE, in relation to the State debts.

Mr. WALKER having concluded his remarksMr. MERRICK rose and said: 1 regret, Mr. President, the necessity which presses upon me again to intrude upon the attention of the Senate, and occupy a further portion of its now almost invaluable time with a discussion leading to no prac tical results; indeed, I have been much astonished at the pertinacity with which gentlemen on the other side continue to renew and force upon the Senate this discussion, to the exclusion of all the valuable and important subjects for practical legislation pending before us, and, consequently, to the great detriment of the public interest, after the majority of the Senate have twice determined by solemn votes, upon yeas and nays, that they could not and would not, at this time, entertain these abstract propositions. But, much as I have been surprised at this, I am still more surprised-indeed, sir, I am utterly confounded-by the declarations made by the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. MCDUFFIE] at the conclusion of his remarks, and repeated by the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. WALKER.] These declarations are of a character so extraordinary and so unusual here, that I am unwilling and unprepared to make any reply to them; and I shall, therefore, leave them to be judged of by the Senate and the country, in the face of which they have been made. Argument would be vain in combating positive declarations that gentlemen will, under certain circumstances, refuse to redeem the bonds of this Government, issued under the sanction of all the forms of a law of Congress; I shall leave them, therefore, to the judgment of the Senate and the country, and pass on to the consideration of the subject more immediately in hand. I have before announced on this floor, that, as often as gentlemen might see fit to renew these assaults upon the States and upon State credit, I felt bound, and held myself prepared, to meet them; and intend to fulfil the promise then made. It is a solemn duty I owe to my constituents to interpose in every such case. And what excites my special wonder is, the distrust-the unusual and unjustifiable distrust-of the people, manifested by these attempts to force on a discussion here, for no conceivable purpose, unless it be to forestall and control the action of the public mind.

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Mc. DUFFIE] has been, throughout the whole of that part of his remarks which I was fortunate enough to hear, contending against propositions which have not been presented or suggested here, upon which we are not required to act, and which, so far as they exist at all, are mere subjects of discussion and inquiry among the people; and shall we assume upon ourselves the power, or attempt, in any way, to arrest the people in their discussions and inquiries? Are they not to be trusted to deliberate, to discuss, and inquire into public measures, and make up their minds as to the direction they may see fit to give to their public affairs? Shall we undertake to control and direct them in the exercise of

Senate.

this great and fundamental right, and teach them how they are to demean themselves upon such questions as the gentleman has discussed? or is it not rather our duty, as the mere agents of the States and people, to conform our action to their will? They are the sovereigns-we the agents; and are we so terribly afraid of the ignorance, or incompetence, or wickedness of those for whom we are sent here to act, that the natural order of things must be reversed; and we are to neglect our appropriate and assigned duties, for the purpose of teaching them lessons in advance, and checking the free and full exercise by them of the rights of inquiry and discussion on whatever subject they please to discuss? I rather think it is our duty to obey the behests of public opinion, not to direct or control its formation. Such is at least the professed doctrine, and such should be the practice of gentlemen. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. McDUFFIE] asks if anybody supposes there is any "inherent wealth in this Government, or that they have the power to give to the people any more money than they first extract from the people?" and thence he argues all attempts at relief are worse than useless. Now, sir, I will admit the gentleman's position, but deny his conclusion; because you already have, long since, drawn from the people the money necessary to the acquisition of that vast fund, the public lands, which is adequate and ample to afford all the relief now wanted or asked for, and which you most unjustly withhold, although it can in no other way be so well and beneficially applied. Here is an immense property of almost incalculable value, a part of it acquired by the blood and treasure of our revo lutionary fathers, and the residue purchased by money long since contributed by the people generally; which is useless, or worse than useless, to this Government, in the way in which it is now held and disposed of; but which, properly applied, is much more than ample for the relief of the indebted States and the whole community, but which you sternly, remorselessly withhold, turning a deaf ear to all the demands from every quarter for the relief it could afford; and false issues are gotten up about the assumption of State debts, which nobody has proposed, or thinks of proposing; and of this it is that I complain, and against which, in the name and in the behalf of the people of Maryland, I enter my most solemn protest.

Sir, it has been argued that this land fund is utterly insignificant, and therefore you will not grant it-surrender it, rather to its rightful owners, now that they want it, and are in distress. This argument confutes itself. If the fund be really so insignificant, why do you make such a pother about it? Why not yield it at once, if it is not worth contending for? Be it ever so small, a little would give some relief to people in distress; it would give them comfort, and free you from their vexatious demands. Yet you will not yield it, and your refusal proves the pretence to be false. It is true that but a comparatively small sum appears to have been received into the treasury during the last year from this source; but then it is equally true, and cannot be denied, that, until very lately, these lands had, for a series of years, yielded an average of about ten millions of dollars annually; and there is no doubt that they will, under a proper administration, again yield, in a very little while, as much, or very nearly as much. Now, anybody can calculate how great would be the relief afforded by this sum annually applied to the use of the States. A child can tell you upon what amount of State debts it would pay the interest, at three or at six per cent. There is, sir, a steady but constantly increasing demand for the public lands for settlement and cultivation, bearing a just proportion to the increase of our population, from natural causes, and by emigration to the country. This demand has always heretofore been, and must, in the nature of things, continue to be, progressively increasing. Tell me not, then, that the fund is insignificant, or that as much will not be derived from it in future, if properly administered, as it has heretofore yielded. But gentlemen may ask, why there is so little derived from it just now? I answer, these are extraordinary times of embarrassment and difficulty, and, to some extent, the land sales are affected thereby; but they are much more materially and fatally affected by the manner in which these lands are now disposed of. There is no inducement, under your present preemption laws, to purchase at all; on the contrary, there is every possible inducement to delay purchasing. As soon as a district of country is sur

27TH CONG....3D SESS.

veyed under your present laws, settlers have a right to go upon, and make selections of the best and most choice portions of it, and they acquire the right of pre-emption; that is, they acquire the right to hold their settlements against all the world, on condition only that they shall pay the Government one dollar and a quarter per acre whenever the Executive shall please to have it sold. This sale he may order in one year, or not for twenty years; and, so long as the public sale is not made by order of the President, the settlers hold and enjoy the lands without interest on the purchase money. They are purchasers on a credit, at the will of the President, without interest. Who can expect that sales will be made, or much revenue derived from these lands, under such a system?

Many years ago it was found that the sale of the public lands upon a credit was unwise, and created the dangerous relation of debtor and creditor between the Government and too many of its citizens. That policy was, therefore, then changed --the existing debts were forgiven, by allowing surrenders, the price of the lands reduced one-half, and cash sales prescribed for the future. But, by some sort of legerdemain, we have now got back to credit sales in a ten times more destructive and dangerous form. How many thousand voters are now on the public lands, the debtors of the Government in fact, under the disguise of pre-emptioners, at the mere will of the President of the United States, for millions of dollars? How anxious must they not be to prolong their credit, since they pay no interest? and how difficult must it not be for President to resist their solicitations to delay the sales? and how dangerous is not, or may not this absolute control over the interests of such numbers of people become, in the hands of an Executive of this country? Sir, this system must be changed. The people will not longer consent that so great and valuable an inheritance shall be appropriated to the exclusive use of a few, while others are suf1ering for the want of their just proportion; neither will they much longer allow so great and such dangerous power to remain in the hands of any President.

Something was said in connexion with the subject of State debts the other day, by the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. ALLEN,] about British bankers and British brokers. I did not distinctly understand the application of those remarks, but supposed they were intended to lessen the sense of obligation to pay these bonds, because they were held by such people. Mr. President, I have nothing to do with bankers or brokers, British or American. I have no interest in these matters, except as a tax-payer; my taxes I find are heavy, and to pay them I am obliged to part with means necessary to provide properly for the comfort of myself and children. Yet, sir, I do pay them promptly and willingly; and, sir, these children shall toil--yea, sir, they and their sire shall toil, in the earth, so long as this arm is nerved or this heart is warm, sooner than the fair fame of our State shall be tarnished by a refusal to pay to the last cent of our debts, no matter who holds our bonds. Our debts have been fairly contracted; and, by the blessing of God and the efficacy of human energy, we of Maryland will toil on to the last, and submit to all sorts of privations, but we will redeem our plighted faith. Repudiation has no hold in our soil; there were but two members of our last Legislature who were supposed to countenance such a doctrine, and they representing counties always, I believe, opposed to the policy which has produced our indebtedness, and therefore surly and discontented under the pressure of the necessary taxation; and yet, sir, those two gentlemen met, upon their return home, the indignant frowns of their noble-minded constituency, and were dismissed from the public service. Those constituents feel, and deeply feel, the pressure of the times, and are disappointed and dissatisfied to find that direct taxation has come upon them; but, nevertheless, they prefer their difficulties, and will bear them willingly, taxes and all, rather than submit to dishonor. There is still alive among them, sir, (and long may it be cherished!) that proud spirit of sturdy independence and conscious integrity which characterized their honored ancestry. They will never repudiate their debts.

But, sir, while we intend to exert our every nerve to maintain our honor and meet all our en gagements-while we shall be delving to earn the means necessary for our subsistence and for this purpose, we shall not be able to forget, in the midst of our toils and privations, that there are those that

The Bankrupt Law-Mr. Huntington.

could easily relieve us, and who will not; that there are those who, having our means in their hands as our trustees-means which our blood and treasure have before acquired, and which are ample for our relief-yet coldly withhold those means from our use, and turn with disdain from our suffering and our wants; nay, more, who select this very time to aggravate both, by unnatural and uncalled-for assaults upon our credit. Sir, we cannot and we will not forget nor overlook these things. We come not to you as mendicants, asking you to assume or pay our debts. No, sir; we disdain all such abasement. But we ask, we demand our rights our fair proportion of a vast common property, which you are wasting, and which would make us happy if you would but relax your iron grasp.

We have been told, sir, that this subject was to enter into our next elections; and I suppose the object of gentlemen is to make up issues for that election. I am willing, quite willing, to go down to the election upon this, the true issue, as I now put it. Gentlemen must not expect me to allow them to make up false issues upon a question so vitally interesting to my constituents. No, sir; if justice is to be withheld from us, I will at least see that the true issue is made; and upon that I am ready to meet gentlemen before the people. I go for relief-relief, by applying to the present wants and necessities of the people the proceeds of the public lands, which are rightfully theirs, and which you are wasting; and I have before shown, though you now disguise the fact, that this fund properly administered is amply sufficient to afford us great and permanent relief.

I offer you, Mr. President, as an amendment to the resolutions of the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. McDUFFIE,] the following:

Resolved, That most wisely did the fathers of the Republic, in establishing the Constitution of the United States, so frame that sacred instrument that it should be plain, easily understood, and intelligible to all upon whom it was to operate as a rule of action; and that it is not competent for any department of the Government, established by it, to enlarge or contract its true meaning, of which the citizens are, and of necessity must be, in the last resort, the exclusive judges.

Resolved, That it is no part of the assigned duty of the Senate of the United States to expound the Constitution to the people; and every such attempt is a departure from its appropriate sphere of action, and argues a distrust in the capacity of the people for self-government, unwarranted alike by our past history, and the present enlightened state of the public mind.

Resolved, That, whilst it is no part of the duty of the Senate of the United States to expound the Constitution for the people, it is its most solemn duty to exercise the powers intrusted to it by that instrument, in the true spirit and according to the nature of the trust, for the promotion of the happiness and the welfare of the people.

Resolved, therefore, The happiness of the people now requiring it, and full power over the subject being given to Congress, that provision should be made, without further delay, for the fair and equal distribution, among all the States, of the proceeds of the public lands, in such manner as will best tend to remove or alleviate the evils of direct taxation, under which the people of some of the States are now suffering, and which threaten soon inevitably to be visited upon other States.

REMARKS OF MR. HUNTINGTON,

OF CONNEC↓ICUT.

In Senate, February 25, 1843.-On the bill for the repeal of the bankrupt act.

Mr. HUNTINGTON said that it was no part of his purpose to address the Senate on the general subject of the repeal of the bankrupt act. There was one reason (among many others) which would deter him from making a speech now; and that was, the necessity imposed on the Senate to devote the few remaining days of the session to action instead of debate. Our unfinished business was very great, and public expediency and private justice both demanded that we should proceed as rapidly as possible to dispose of it. It might be added, that probably the opinion of every Senator was matured, and that discussion would not alter it. Mr. H. said he had risen solely to assign the reasons for the vote he should give. This it was proper he should do, especially since the appeals which had been

Senate.

made to Senators whose votes were given in favor of the passage of the bankrupt act, and to himself particularly by the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. CHOATE] on a portion of whose remarks he should be pleased to comment, if the business before the Senate should allow it. He should confine himself to a brief explanation of his position, and of the reasons for the course he should pursue. Mr. H. said it was well known that heretofore he had acted with those who were desirous to have a bankrupt law a part of our system. When I came into the Senate, (said Mr. H.,) such an act was under consideration; and the first vote which I gave here was upon a proposition which related to subjecting banking corporations to the provisions of the act. I had the honor to be one of the select committee to which that act was referred for revision and final modification. It received all the attention I was able to give it, and it had my support both in debate and by vote. I continued to advocate and vote for a bankrupt act until it passed the Senate. In doing so, while I followed the dictates of my own judgment, I believed that I was carrying out the views and wishes of a large majority of my constituents. I was aware that there was somewhat of a divided opinion in the State which I represent. I presented many petitions, numerously signed, in favor of a bankrupt law, and very few in opposition to it. I had no reason to doubt that the sentiment of the State was, in general, favorable to its passage. I was, however, left to the free and unbiased expression of my own views, and to such action as my judg ment should dictate, by a State which knew I would act from correct motives, and from a conscientious regard to duty, and which has, on more than one occasion, given me the highest proofs of her confidence. And (said Mr. H.) I do not affirm now, that I either misunderstood the opinions of those whom I represent, or that they have undergone any change as to the propriety of the passage of the law at the time when it was enacted. But they are now of opinion that it ought to be repealed. I have received the instructions of the Legislature of Connecticut on this subject, but, as directory and authoritative, they do not control my action. I do not believe in the modern doctrine of instructions. Indeed, there is hardly any doctrine which I consider more palpably unconstitutional, and more eminently dangerous, than that which declares it to be the duty of a Senator to obey the orders of the Legislature or to resign. But I do not mean to enter into any argument on this point. If, however, I did acknowledge the right to require obedience to such orders, I should obey them or resign. I should not profess to be a believer in the doctrine of instruction, and declare my readiness to obey, and at the same time quibble about words, and plead in abatement, or demur specially to the instructions, and thus avoid a compliance by objecting to the form in which the order had been passed. But, as I utterly deny any such authority on the part of a Legislature, I shall not enlarge upon this point. The opinion of such a body I shall treat with respect; and, if I find it to be the expression of the public opinion, maturely formed upon questions of national policy, and that in supporting that opinion no sacrifice of conscience, or honor, or constitutional duty, is required of me, it will receive from me all that attention and respect and weight which, under such circumstances, it eminently deserves. With some exceptions, (of men of the highest character for intelligence and moral worth.) the State which I represent is now decidedly opposed, as I believe, to the continuance of the bankrupt law. The opinions of the people of that Commonwealth have not been hastily formed, nor are they the result of bias, or prejudice, or caprice. They have been deliberately formed, after a careful examination of the subject, and of the operation of the law; and my constituents have spoken, in various forms, in language which cannot be misunderstood, and in a manner which leaves no room for doubt as to their wishes. The bankrupt law is considered by them as a measure which their interests and those of the Union require should not be persevered in, and which ought to be repealed. And now (said Mr. HI consider it proper to carry out these views of my constituents. The subject is one on which they have a right to speak, and regarding which their wishes should be carried into effect. It is their right to say that they believe their interests, as well as those of the country generally, will be promoted by the repeal of the bankrupt law. They have exercised that right

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

in different forms, which are plain and intelligible, and which admit, in my judgment, of no reasonable doubt. They believe that those interests require that the act shall not be continued as a part of the law of the land. In voting, therefore, as I shall do, for the repeal of the law, I shall act in accordance, as I think, with the wishes of the people who sent me here-shall respond to the call made upon me by my fellow-citizens who have given me this place of responsibility and honor-and perform an act which will be in accordance with their clearly expressed opinions, and their convictions of what is required by principles of private justice and public expediency. Mr. H. said he had considered it proper to make this explanation, and would leave the subject without further remark.

[The following speech was made at the 2d session of the 27th Congress, as will be seen by its date; but it was not written out by the member and delivered to us until after the Appendix for that session was completed, which will account for its appearance in this volume.]

SPEECH OF MR. J. C. EDWARDS,

OF MISSOURI.

Iu the House of Representatives, July 11, 1842.-On the tariff.

Mr. CHAIRMAN: The hour is late, and the House is thin, and several members yet wish to speak; and in two hours after we meet to-morrow, this debate will be closed, under the resolution adopted for that purpose.

I shall say only enough to show my position on the tariff. One hour is not sufficient to enable me to go into the subject fully; and in less than one hour I can state my points, and give the character of my tables, and show the position I occupy in reference to the tariff. At this late hour, and so near the close of this debate, I cannot expect to do more. I may not, then, occupy even the time allowed me; but if, hereafter, I write out my speech, I may avail myself of the usual liberty under the hour rule-that of writing even more than I may say.

I am opposed to this bill. I am not only opposed to this bill, but I have objections to any tariff. But I am especially opposed to this bill. It has unusual features for a tariff-features more than usually objectionable. Its general tendencies will be to encourage domestic manufactures; to cut off foreign importations; and to drive this Government into a system of direct taxation. But, in the progress of my remarks, it will be seen that I have less objection to the general tendencies of the bill, than to its particular features. Any tariff would have the same general tendencies; but a more moderate tariff would hasten the same results less rapidly.

I am opposed to this bill; but I am not unfriendly to manufactures, and never have been, but have always been friendly to them. I have seen many of them flourish in our country, and have taken great pleasure in doing so; and I hope that such as can be made profitable will continue to flourish. The manufacture of those things which we are compelled to have during a state of war, we should enconrage at any expense, and at all hazards.

I am opposed to a tariff: but we necessarily have one; and, while that is the case, a fair protection will be given to our manufactures generally. But that tariff which will give the most revenue, under existing circumstances, will give as much protection as the manufacturing interest should ask for. Too high a tariff will lead to results unfavorable to the manufacturing interests themselves. A high tariff will reduce our revenue too much, and force us too soon to direct taxation, even for the manufacturing interests. It will force into existence manufactures which cannot be profitable except under a high tariff, and which must be abandoned when we are driven to direct taxation.

The lowest revenue standard is the highest protection that should be asked. The expense of importing foreign merchandise cannot be less than ten per cent., and often reaches fifteen. If it reaches only ten, this is a protection of ten per cent. to our domestic manufactures. If our tariff be only twenty per cent., this, added to the expense of importing, will make a protection of at least thirty per This ought to be enough. But this protection has always been much more, and, under this bill, will be greatly more-not less than forty

cent.

The Tariff Bill—Mr. J. C. Edwards.

or forty-five per cent., on an average; and, on many articles, one hundred per cent.

The cultivation of the soil is the great leading employment in our country. Almost every man who has no employment more profitable, engages in agriculture. Almost every man who engages in any trade, or traffic, or speculation, or manufacture, does so because he believes it more profitable than cultivating the soil. And a great question in this discussion is, whether we should make other pursuits more profitable than agriculture. We are not forced into the manufacturing system for want of land to cultivate. We shall have plenty of room for all our population for years to come, and much to spare.

By our last census, we have 3,717,750 persons engaged in agriculture. Of all the other classes, but 978,651 have employments. Of this number, 15,203 are engaged in mining; 117,575 in commerce; 56,025 in navigating the ocean; 33,067 in navigating canals and rivers; 65,236 engaged in the learned professions; and 791,545 in manufactures and trades. The population engaged in agri. culture is about five times as great as that engaged in manufactures and trades both together. All the other interests of the country bear but a small proportion to the agricultural. It is the leading employment in point of numbers; and they have the power to say-if they choose to say it--whether they will be taxed to support other classes, or not; and, if so, then how much. The tax on imported goods is a tax on the people at large, and a protection to the manufacturers, at least to the amount of the tax.

We must have a revenue. If we raise it by a tax on importations generally, then we must protect manufactures to the extent of the tax on manufactured articles. More protection than this should not be asked. If any description of manufactures is more profitable in our Government than agriculture-our great leading employment--then that description of manufacture can be put into operation, and can be encouraged and made to prosper, without the aid and protection of Government. If any description of manufactures is only equally profitable with agriculture, then that description of manufacture may be put into operation, and made to flourish as well as agriculture itself, without the aid and protection of the Government. If any description of manufacture be less profitable than agriculture, that can be put into operation and made to flourish only by taxing agriculture, and the more profitable descriptions of manufactures, and other pursuits, to such an extent as to protect the unprofitable manufactures.

The tax we have been in the habit of levying on imported goods for revenue, has operated, to the extent of, that tax, as a protection to domestic manufactures. If the tax for revenue be twenty per cent., then those manufactures which are twenty per cent. less profitable than agriculture can be put into operation, and made to flourish as well as agriculture. If any description of manufacture requires more protection than twenty per cent., then the question may well begin to arise, whether this manufacture is not costing the other pursuits of the country more than it is worth. must have revenue; and, while we continue the system of imposts, we must give protection; but that protection should not be made to cost us too

much.

We

It is wrong to impose taxes upon profitable employments, to encourage unprofitable employments; to drive capital from profitable investments to unprofitable investments; to drive people from profitable labor to unprofitable labor. When the Government does so, the country suffers a clear loss of the difference in the value of the employments, and of the expense in making the exchange from one employment to the other. When she does so, she acts the part of an unwise and foolish Government, and retards her own progress to greatness, and that of her people to happiness and wealth. Her interference with the labor and industry of the country may enrich a few of her citizens; but, in proportion as partial legislation enriches a few-and, perhaps, in a still greater proportion-it will impoverish the balance. And, what is still worse: her influence, when exercised, operates for the benefit of the wealthy, and to the injury of the poor. If she interferes at all in the employments of her citizens, her interference should operate in the other direction. It would be better to distribute the abundance in the coffers of the rich, among the poor and the needy, than to extract the pittances from the pockets of the poor,

H. of Reps.

to be hoarded in the coffers of the rich. But the Government should interfere with neither. Hands should be kept off. Each should be allowed to seek the employment which nature and circumstances, unconnected with partial legislation, have rendered most profitable; and each should be allowed to reap the full fruits of his own industry and labor. Give every man an equal chance. God, no doubt, wills that each should have fair play. One part of us should claim no advantage over the balance of our countrymen; and the balance of us should submit to no inequality which God himself has not created. We should submit quietly to no law which gives to one part of our community advantages, or privileges, or immunities, which the balance of us do not enjoy; and we should oppose all laws which tend to create distinctions, whether in wealth, or in rank, or in titles. As a general rule, the Government should aid no class of her citizens, when she must do it at the expense of other classes, no matter how large or how small. No one part of our country, and no one class of our citizens, should be made subservient to another.

I am opposed to this bill-first, because it is prohibitory; second, because it contains the minimum principle; third, because it taxes sugar, and coffee, and salt; fourth, because the general rate of duties is too high for the purposes of revenue; fifth, because it proposes to repeal the twenty per cent. clause in the distribution act sixth, because under this, as well as under any other tariff, the taxes collected are not in proportion to the property protected--the poor often paying as much as the rich, and frequently more; and, seventh, because of all others, the system of imposts is the most expensive, and consequently the most oppressive, system of tax

ation.

1. This bill prohibits the importation of many articles. So far, it is unconstitutional. No power is granted to this Government to prohibit the importation of foreign goods. And this Government can do only what she is empowered to do by the Constitution. It is otherwise with the State Governments they can do whatever they are not restrained by their constitution from doing. If the people of a State had no constitution, their Legislature would be unrestrained, and could do anything' in the power of a legislative body to do. But our States have constitutions, and these constitutions restrain the action of the State Legislatures, by prescribing what they shall not do; but leave them the power to do everything which a legislative body can do, except those things which the constitutions prohibit them from doing. Not so with Congress-the Legislature of the United States. She can exercise only such powers as are delegated to her by the Constitution of the United States. If any reasonable doubt had ever existed on this point, that doubt should have been forever settled by the tenth amendment to the Constitution. This amendment provides that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." No powers are vested in this Government, except such as are "delegated to the United States by the Constitution." No power is given to prohibit the importation of goods. The power given to Congress on the subject of taxation is "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States." Taxes must be laid and collected "to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare," and not to prevent the importation of merchandise; and by that means to give aid to the manufacturers, or any other partic. ular class. If taxes are to be laid "to pay debts," then they must be laid to collect revenue, else no "debts" can be paid. But taxes, duties, and imposts, laid to prohibit the importation of merchandise, are not intended to collect revenue "to pay debts;" and do not collect revenue, but prevent the collection of revenue; and are, therefore, unconstitutional.

2. This bill is odious, because it contains the minimum principle. On cotton manufactures, this bill fixes a duty of thirty per cent. ad valorem. The expression "ad valorem" does not mean, under this bill, according to actual value, but according to the value which the bill fixes on an article. But the language of the bill explains itself. It provides "that all manufactures of cotton, or of which cotton shall be a component part, not dyed, colored, printed, or stained, not exceeding in value twenty cents per square yard, shall be valued at twenty