Page images
PDF
EPUB

27TH CONG....3D SESS.

sider a rapids either. The first rapids, then i a the Great Bend.

But Lieutenant Lea examined the river especially in reference to the boundary question and the existence of rapids. He is your own officer and your own witness, and you must not discredit him. He says: "Several shallow places, with swift currents, are found below the Great Bend; but there is no obstruction of magnitude sufficient to deserve the appellation of 'rapids,' below those at the place thus named, where there is, at low water, a fall of one or two feet in about eighty yards." This settles the question that the first rapids are at the Great Bend. Commissioners, appointed on the part of the State of Missouri to examine the river, report the rapids at the Great Bend as "the first rapids in the river Des Moines above the mouth." Lieutenant Lea further says, the line "passing through the Des Moines river at the Great Bend is understood to be the line claimed by the State of Missouri; and if any rapids in the Des Moines river ought to be regarded as the governing point, I believe that these should be taken, as being the best known on account of their proximity to the mouth and to the old boundary. * Should Congress be of opinion that the fourth line, or the line passing through the rapids in the Des Moines river, is the true boundary, I would respectfully recommend the definitive adoption of the line already run through that point by the authority of the State of Missouri. It was carefully surveyed and marked by Joseph C. Brown, of St. Louis, a gentleman in every way qualified to perform the duty." There are, then, no rapids below those at the Great Bend, according to the report of your own commissioner. In claiming the rapids at the Great Bend, then, we claim the least we are entitled to-we claim the lowest rapids in the river. If you insist on forcing us higher up, we cannot help that. That will be your fault, and not ours. We show our moderation by demanding as little as we can-the lowest rapids.

The next argument to prove that the rapids in the Great Bend are the rapids called for in fixing our northern boundary, has, singularly enough, been perverted by the committee into an argument to prove that we had never called for rapids in the river Des Moines. In the report made in 1840, your committee says, "the next task is to identify the rapids of the river Des Moines," referred to in the boundary of Missouri. The mind is struck by the fact that these rapids are not placed in the northern boundary line, but are introduced for the purpose of fixing a parallel of latitude, upon which the western line should terminate; and when this parallel is thus located, the northern line is required to pursue it east, "to the middle of the channel of the main fork of the river Des Moines.

* It cannot be readily conceived that a rapids of such note and importance as to define a parallel of latitude, upon which one line of a great State was made to terminate, and along which another line was made to run and corner upon them, should yet not be called for in the description of the line. An object so well calculated to give the desired permanent notoriety to the boundary lines of a member of this confederacy, would doubtless have been introduced in setting them forth in the charter of its existence." [House Doc. No. 2, 1st sess. 26th Congress, pages 4 and 5.] Now, nothing is more easily explained than all this; and it seems to me that nothing is more natural than the manner of describing the northern boundary adopted by the convention; and that manner of describing shows, beyond a doubt, that new, and unexplored, and uninhabited as the country was, yet the convention had information enough about it to know what they were doing, and also that they did call for rapids at the Great Bend, and not for rapids higher up the Des Moines river. It shows, also, how the truth will unfold itself, and how plain it may be made. Here I must ask a reference to the chart of the Des Moines river, and of the northern boundary, as made out by Lieutenant Lea, and attached to his report. It will be seen by this chart, that there is a great bend in the Des Moines river at this point, and that the rapids are on the east side of this great bend, and that the river runs some miles south of the rapids, and before it reaches the rapids. The rapids are not called for in the description of the northern boundary. The northern boundary runs east, "along the parallel of latitude which passes through

Missouri Boundary Line-Mr. J. C. Edwards.

This

the rapids of the river Des Moines." These rapids are on the east side of the bend. The north boundary, in following the parallel of latitude from west to east, encounters "the middle of the channel of the main fork of the Des Moines" several miles before it reaches the "rapids" themselves. To have pursued the parallel of latitude until it passed through the "rapids," would have taken the line across the Des Moines river, and would have included, in the State of Missouri, several hundred, and perhaps several thousand acres of land, lying on the north side of the Des Moines river. the convention wanted to avoid; they wanted the Des Moines river to be the boundary line. To make it so, when the north boundary reached the main channel of the main fork of that river, they changed the direction of the boundary, and ran down the middle of the main channel of the main fork of that river to the mouth. If the line had followed a parallel of latitude running through any other rapids in this river, the rapids should have been called for in closing the boundary; because a parallel of latitude passing through any other rapids in this river, would have struck the river, for the first time, at the rapids themselves. It is not so at the Great Bend; and these are the only rapids in the Des Moines river where it is not so. This peculiar manner of describing the northern boundary clearly fixes the rapids in the Great Bend as the rapids called for in describing that boundary, and annihilates the argument of the committee that these rapids had not been called for, and that they were, therefore, in the Mississippi river.

It may not be in order to say that this error in the report of 1840 was pointed out to the present Committee on the Territories, and the matter explained to them. At all events, they abandon the argument in the first report, but still maintain the same position, but by a different argument, in the report of this session. Your committee now says that, "as the line on the northern border of Missouri, upon the hypothesis assumed by her, would intersect the rapids named in her boundary, the almost irresistible presumption is, that those rapids would have been referred to in the description of this line. It would be strange indeed, if, beforehand, Congress should recognise these rapids as of such prominent consequence as to define upon them a parallel of latitude which should arrest the course of the western line, and should then conduct the northern line along this parallel to the Des Moines river, and then along the middle of the main channel thereof, passing through these same rapids, and yet should wholly omit to mention them in the description of this line. Nor is this position weakened by the fact that the northern line would strike the river in the bend above the rapids. * *** It would be difficult, indeed, to believe that, impressed, as Congress must have been, with the important character of these rapids, it yet should establish this line so as to cut them in the centre, and yet make no mention of them as in any way connected with it. How easy and natural it would have been, after having proceeded with the boundary to the river Des Moines, to have added, "thence down said river, in the middle of the main channel thereof, and through the centre of the rapids aforesaid, to the mouth of the said river, where it empties into the Mississippi." I admit this would have been "easy," but not more "easy" than idle, and silly, and foolish; because the line was not apt to be lost as long as it was to follow the middle of the main channel of a river six hundred feet wide. But the convention did not do everything which was "easy" to be done. Let me give an example: "The rapids or the river Des Moines." The committee says this means the rapids or the Mississippi river. If the convention so meant, how "easy" it would have been to have said "the rapids of the river Des Moines" in the river Mississippi. Another example: If the convention had wanted rapids in the Mississippi river, and had only called for the "Des Moines rapids" in the Mississippi river, this would have fixed the rapids in that river beyond all question; and this would have been "easy;" but they did not do so. Then, if the convention called for rapids in the Mississippi river, they did not do things in the easiest manner; but, in this case, adopted the most difficult of all modes, except one, of accomplishing their object. If the convention had called for "the rapids in the river Des Moines," and not for "the rapids of the river Des Moines," then I believe it would have been a little more difficult to have driven us from home, and into the Mississippi river, than it is now; but

H. of Reps.

not much more so. Then, our convention did not do everything which was "easy."

But I am disposed to treat this argument seriously, although the committee have shifted from the grounds assumed in their first report. Beaten from their position, they should have surrendered. That pride which makes us adhere to an opinion when convinced that that opinion is unfounded, is an erroneous pride. In such cases it is more manly to acknowledge our error than to assume another false position. But the committee has waived the former, and chosen the latter course.

The committee now says, that although the northern boundary comes in contact with the Des Moines river several miles before it reaches the rapids at the Great Bend, and then takes a new direction "down the middle of the main channel of said river," yet, in passing the rapids below, the boundary should take a passing notice of these rapids. "The prominent objects through which a boundary passes should be named." If this be true with reference to the northern boundary, it is also true, and equally so, with reference to the western boundary. Let us then see whether the prominent objects in the western boundary were called for in describing that boundary.

The southern boundary runs west, along the parallel of latitude thirty-six degrees thirty min utes, "to a point where the said parallel of latitude is intersected by a meridian line passing through the middle of the mouth of the Kansas river, where the same empties into the Missouri river." Here is a prominent object near the centre of the western line "the mouth of the Kansas river"-and this, according to the committee, must be called for in describing that line. But this is a description of the southern line. It runs to said meridian linethat passing through the mouth of the Kansas riverand then stops. Then commences the description of the western boundary. This starts at the termination of the southern boundary, and is in these words: "Thence, from the point aforesaid, north, along the said meridian line, to the intersection of the parallel of latitude which passes through the rapids of the river Des Moines, making the said line correspond with the Indian boundary line.” This is the description of the western boundary, and yet the prominent object--the object which fixes the meridian on which it runs-"the mouth of the Kansas river"-is not once mentioned in describing this boundary. If a failure to call for the "rapids" in the northern boundary unsettles the northern boundary, then, by the same rule, a failure to call for the "mouth of the Kansas," in the western boundary, unsettles the western boundary. But the western boundary is not affected by this failure to call for the "mouth of the Kansas." No more, then, is the northern boundary affected by a failure to call for the "rapids." The "mouth of the Kansas" is not once mentioned in describing the western boundary.

Nor are "the rapids of the river Des Moines" once mentioned in describing the northern boundary. They are introduced as descriptive of the western boundary. They fix the parallel of latitude on which the western boundary is to terminate. The southern boundary ends at the meridian, passing through the mouth of the Kansas. The western boundary commences here, and runs "thence, from the point aforesaid," to "the parallel of latitude which passes through the rapids of the river Des Moines." This parallel of latitude the western boundary intersects, and here terminates; and here starts the northern boundary; and this runs "thence east, from the point of intersection last aforesaid, along the said parallel of latitude, to the middle of the channel of the main fork of the said river Des Moines; thence, down and along the middle of the main channel of the said river Des Moines, to the mouth of the same." This is the description of the northern boundary. The "rapids" are not once mentioned in it, any more than was the "mouth of the Kansas" mentioned in describing the western boundary. It was wholly useless to do so. When you fix the termination of the western boundary, then you have the beginning of the northern boundary. The termination of the western boundary is the "parallel of latitude which passes through the rapids of the river Des Moines." At this termination the northern boundary begins. Along this parallel of latitude the northern boundary runs. No point need be called for along this parallel of latitude till you cease to follow it. In following it, the first object you strike, which changes your direction, should be mentioned. This

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

is done. We strike the Des Moines river several miles before we reach the "rapids"-we run to the middle of the channel of the main fork-we call for this point-we then change our direction, and follow the middle of the main channel of the river Des Moines, and we pass through the rapids at the Great Bend in the Des Moines, and do not notice them any more than we did the "mouth of the Kansas" in running the western boundary through that; nor was it necessary to do so. But the committee insists that it is not sufficiently certain to say we are going down the middle of the main channel of the river Des Moines. We must say "we are passing through the rapids at the Great Bend." This was surely unnecessary, if not worse than useless.

Missouri Boundary Line—Mr. J. C. Edwards.

I admit that, if the "mouth of the Kansas" had been the terminating point of the western boundary, then the mouth of that river should have been called for in the description of the western boundary. So, if the northern boundary had run along the parallel of latitude up to "the rapids of the river Des Moines," and had there changed its direction, then the "rapids" should have been called for, also. In this case, the description should have been in these words: thence east from the point of intersection aforesaid, along the said parallel of latitude, to "the middle of the rapids of the river Des Moines;" and thence down the middle of the main channel of the main fork of said river, calling for none of the "ripples" or "rapids" below. As the rapids are not called for at the closing of the northern boundary on the Des Moines river, it seems conclusive that the rapids at the Great Bend are the rapids called for by the convention. The line would have struck the rapids at any other point as soon as it reached the river; but not so at this point: and this is the only point where it is not so.

But the rapids at the Great Bend are, no doubt, the rapids called for by the constitution. But, under the usual rule of construction, if we had no evidence, we might be entitled to rapids much higher up the Des Moines than those at the Great Bend. When a line calls for a long or a large object as a bearing point, without designating the particular object called for, the line must be fixed in the centre of the object. When a line calls for several objects as a bearing point, the medium point between them is the true position for the line. When a line calls for one of several objects, without designating the particular object, the true position is on that object nearest the centre of the several called for. Under this rule, if our evidence does not show that we are entitled to the rapids at the Great Bend, then we are entitled to rapids still higher up.

7. There are no rapids below the Great Bend. I have, in part, shown this in the preceding part of my argument. There is a ripple ten miles below, according to Captain Guion, and twelve, according to Lieutenant Fiemont. The fall is "slight;" but neither of them fixes it at anything-not so much as five inches. There is a shoal with a "gravel bottom," with an "inconsiderable" current, four miles and a half lower down, according to Lieutenant Fremont, and "forty miles above the mouth," according to Captain Guion. Of course this is no "rapids"-having a gravel bottom, and but little current. There are no others below the Great Bend. Lieutenant Lea says "there is no obstruction of magnitude sufficient to deserve the **** appellation of 'rapids' below those at the Great Bend." (See his report, Doc. No. 128, 3d sess. 25th Cong., p. 6.) These are all your own witnesses, and you should not discredit them. The evidence of Lieutenant Lea, especially, is entitled to weight. He surveyed with reference to this very question. The other gentlemen did not. He was looking for rapids. They were looking for obstructions to navigation. You should credit Lieutenant Lea, then, when he tells you there are no obstruc. tions which deserve the name of rapids below the Great Bend. The commissioners appointed by the State of Missouri to examine the Des Moines river, report, also, that there are no rapids below the Great Bend. The truth is, the two points below the Great Bend, which the committee sometimes dignify with the appellation of rapids, have really a fall of but five or six inches in fifty or one hundred yards; and of course are not rapids, and hardly "ripples."

I have now shown: 1st. That the act of Congress of March 6, 1820, does not give boundaries to the State of Missouri; 2d. That the constitution of the State, sanctioned by the act of Congress of 2d March, 1821, admitting Missouri into the Union,

does give boundaries to the State; 3d. That the convention which adopted the State constitution believed there were rapids in the Des Moines river; 4th. That they called for rapids in the Des Moines river; 5th. That there are rapids in the Des Moines river; 6th. That the rapids at the Great Bend are of considerable size and magnitude, and distinctly marked, and the first in ascending the river; 7th. That the convention did not call for rapids in the Mississippi river; and 8th. That they did call for rapids at the Great Bend, in the Des Moines river.

If the first act of Congress were the controlling instrument, and gave the boundaries to the State, and not the constitution of the State, sanctioned by the second act of Congress, still our evidence would show us entitled to the boundary we claim, even under the act of Congress. The evidence to explain the ambiguity in the act of Congress, as well as that in the constitution of the State, shows that the rapids called for were in the river Des Moines itself, and not in the Mississippi river.

In reference to the ambiguity in the act of Congress, I think I hazard but little in saying that there is but one man now living who can testify with any certainty. That man is the honorable John Scott, who was the delegate from the Territory of Missouri, and who was chairman of the committee; and who drew up the act of Congress in which this ambiguity is found. The ambiguous words are, "the rapids of the river Des Moines." Were they rapids in the Des Moines river, or were they rapids in the Mississippi river?

The honorable John Scott says:

"At the time the act of 6th of March, 1820, was passed by Congress, authorizing the people of Missouri to form a constitution and State Government, the general geography was but little, and the topog raphy of that part of the State still less known. (who represented the country) knew so little, that I had to rely on the information of others in regard to the lines. I applied to several for information. * They all concurred that there were rapids in the Des Moines river itself, some sixty miles from the mouth. * I

*

*

*

am entirely sure that the rapids spoken of in the bill, and intended by the committee, were the rapids in the Des Moines river itself, and not the rapids in the Mississippi river, called, from their proximity to the mouth of the Des Moines river, the 'Des Moines rapids.'"

This evidence is clear, unequivocal, and to the point. It explains the ambiguity in the act of Congress, and fixes the meaning of that act beyond the possibility of a doubt. It settles the point that, by the expression "the rapids of the river Des Moines," Congress meant the rapids in the river Des Moines itself, and not rapids in the Mississippi river. I defy the introduction of any other witness to prove the reverse of this. It cannot be done, because this is true. The credibility, the respectability, and the entire veracity of our witness, is unquestionable. He speaks to the point, positively, unequivocally, and conclusively. Then, with him who believes the act of Congress gives boundaries to our State, this settles the matter.

This would seem to close my case in reference to the northern boundary; and I would leave that boundary here, if some arguments of the committee did not seem to require an answer.

The committee finds an ambiguity in the use of the word "of." "The rapids 'of' the river Des Moines." This phrase does not mean the rapids "in" the river Des Moines, according to the committee, but means the "Des Moines rapids," in the Mississippi river. In the general, too, it would mean the rapids "in" the Des Moines river; but in this particular case it does not. Yet, in their report of 1840, "the committee admit that the name of the rapids, called for in the boundary of that State, would indicate their situation to be 'in' the river Des Moines."-See p. 6 of that report.

In the report of this session, the committee says, "it is not 'a rapids in,' but 'the rapids of the river Des Moines,' which was thought worthy to be associated with those other conspicuous and everlasting monuments of divisional State lines." The "Des Moines rapids, in the Mississippi river, were called for;" then it follows that the "rapids of the river Des Moines" are rapids in the Mississippi river. "What a conspicuous and everlasting monument" of sophistry and perversion of language! "The Falls of the Ohio," the "Falls of the Potomac," "the Falls of the St. Peter's," "the Falls of the Niagara," do not mean falls "in" those several

H. of Reps.

rivers, as the committee would construe the language. "The rapids of the Mississippi river" do not mean rapids in that river. "Thence, dewn along the middle of the main channel 'of' the the said river Des Moines, to the mouth of the same," does not mean "in" the Des Moines river, according to our committee. To express this meaning, the language should be: "thence, down along the middle, 'in' the main channel, 'in' the Des Moines, to the mouth." This would have been clear, but the phrase is very ambiguous as the word "of" was used; and, perhaps, the committee would rather incline to the belief that "the middle' 'of' the main channel 'of' the Des Moines," was in the middle in the main channel in the Mississippi river; but such perversion of language is unbecoming grave legislators. They should look at things as they are, and meet the truth as it comes, and pervert nothing. There is an ambiguity as to what "rapids of the river Des Moines" were meant. The convention did not know at the time that there was more than one rapids in the Des Moines; but there is no ambiguity as to the river in which these rapids are to be found.

If the convention had used the expression "Des Moines rapids," then there would have been an ambiguity as to the river in which we were to look for these 'rapids. The phrase "Des Moines rapids," would readily indicate rapids in the river Des Moines; and a stranger, knowing nothing of the rapids, would look in that river to find them. But the history of the country shows us that there are rapids in the Mississippi river, called the "Des Moines rapids;" because they are near the mouth of Des Moines river, and to distinguish them from the "Rock river rapids" in the Mississippi, near the mouth of Rock river.

In this state of the case, a stranger might well have hesitated whether to look for the rapids in the Des Moines river or in the Mississippi river. He would reason in this way: the "Des Moines rapids" should be in the Des Moines river; but there are "Des Moines rapids" in the Miisissippi also; and yet if the convention had called for the latter, to make the description certain, they should have said the "Des Moines rapids" in the Mississippi river. This would have been adding but four words, and would have fixed the boundary beyond all doubt on the rapids of the Mississippi. But to have used the phrase "Des Moines rapids,' and to have omitted the words "in the Mississippi river," would have left the constitution ambiguous as to the river called for, and have left the north boundary floating between "the rapids of the river Des Moines," and "the rapids of the Mississippi river." And in that case, the State of Missouri might well have contended that the rapids were in the Des Moines river. Then to say that the expression "the rapids of the river Des Moines" means rapids in the Mississippi river, is "preposterous and absurd."

In the report of 1840, the committee says: "A boundary line, as stable and enduring as the Des Moines rapids of the Mississippi, and as certain as the operations of science, was prescribed." See page 7. In 1842, the committee says: "It was the 'Des Moines rapids,' in the great 'father of waters,' that Congress adopted and set forth as one of the most prominent monuments in all the boundary of Missouri." See page 11. Here the committee labors under the mistake of supposing the first act of Congress controlled the boundary, and not the constitution of the State, sanctioned by the second act of Congress, admitting the State into the Union. They overlook also the testimony of John Scott, which is clear and conclusive on this point, and would be so decided in any court of justice in the Union, or the world. He was our Delegate. He drew up the first act of Congress. He says he "applied to several for information;" that "they all concurred that there were rapids in the river Des Moines itself;" that "the rapids spoken of in the bill, and intended by the committee, were the rapids in the Des Moines river itself;" and that they did not refer to "the rapids in the Mississippi river, called, from their proximity to the mouth of the Des Moines river, the Des Moines rapids." Here is the naked truth in reference to the history of the act of Congress; and I defy any man to bring a particle of evidence to the contrary. Then, what a perversion of truth to say that "it was the 'Des Moines rapids,' in the great 'father of floods,' which Congress adopted and set forth as one of the most prominent monuments in all the boundaries of Missouri!"

27TH CONG....3D SESS.

Let it be noticed here, distinctly, that the committee is making the description of the boundaries emanate with Congress; and this gives the language of the description an English origin. And let it be remembered, that when the committee wish to Frenchify the description of the boundaries, they then refer to the constitution of the State, which had its origin in the city of St. Louis, where the population was mostly French; and they give that a French origin. In this way, they have ingeniously worked themselves into the belief, that the expression "the rapids of the river Des Moines" is a translation of the French phrase, "les rapides de la rivière Des Moines," and that it was so intended by the convention, and meant the "Des Moines rapids." After attaching this construction to the constitution of the State, which was adopted among the French population, and therefore had a sort of French origin, they then refer back to the act of Congress, and make the same construction attach to that instrument, the origin of which was clearly and purely English. But I am unwilling to submit to this. The committee must admit that the act of Congress is purely of English origin. If so, the phrase "the rapids of the river Des Moines," used in the act, is not even a translation from the French. And if it was used in the act of Congress without being a translation from the French, it is fair to presume it was used in the constitution without being a translation from the French also; and if so, it had no reference to the phrase by which the "Des Moines rapids" in the Mississippi were designated in French. The convention consisted of forty members, two of whom were Frenchmen-and thirtyeight Americans, mostly Virginians and Kentuckians-a people who would not readily adopt a French idiom in any part of America. As, then, no rapids in the Mississippi river are called "the rapids of the river Des Moines," and as this expression is not of French origin, we must not place these rapids in the Mississippi river, but leave them in the Des Moines river, to which they properly belong.

A letter of Pierre Chouteau, jr., in reply to a letter of Lieutenant Lea, has been referred to in his report, and the committee seems to have extracted from that report. He says: "Yours of the 15th instant requests me to state by what appellation the Des Moines and Rock river rapids 'of' the Mississippi are generally known among the French inhabitants of the country. In reply, I beg to state that I have never known them designated otherwise than as 'les rapides de la rivière Des Moines' and 'les rapides de la rivière de la Roche." I have no doubt this is so, and yet I do not know it, although a Missourian; and I think I hazard very little in saying, that not a single member of Congress knew it when the act was passed authorizing the people of Missouri to form a State constitution. If so, they described the bourdaries of the intended State without any reference to the French name of the rapids in the Mississippi river; and no doubt, in using the same language, the convention did the same thing. Mr. Chouteau does not say that the convention called for rapids in the Mississippi

river. In his letter there is no such assertion.

But another item of evidence given by the committee in their report, to show that the convention called for the "Des Moines rapids" in the Mississippi river, is, that, "as early as 1799, the French governor-general granted to Louis Honore a tract of land, to adjoin 'aux rapides de la rivière des Moines;' and the validity of this grant, upon this descriptive call, has been affirmed by Congress within the last few years." See page 10, report of 1842. This piece of testimony is of the same character with the other-only weaker, being built upon the other. Congress confirmed the grant to Louis Honore, because the rapids in the Mississippi were called by the French "aux rapides de la rivière des Moines;" and the committee now introduces this confirmation as further evidence that the rapids were so called. The confirmation proves no such thing. But admit these rapids were so called, and it does not prove that "the rapids of the river Des Moines" are the "Des Moines rapids" of the Mississippi. Just as well might you say that "the rapids in the river Des Moines" are the "Des Moines rapids" of the Mississippi. The language is of precisely the same import. But a confirmation of a title to a small tract of land is by no means conclusive evidence that the claimant was entitled to the land. It is well known, and unfortunate, too, that the best claims are sometimes neglected by Congress, while the most iniquitous are sometimes

Missouri Boundary Line—Mr. J. C. Edwards.

granted. The "Des Moines rapids" are in the
Mississippi river, and are known by that name; but
these are one rapids, and "the rapids of the river
Des Moines" another, and a totally different and
distinct rapids, to be found in another and a totally
different and distinct place.

The rapids in the Mississippi river had a distinct
name, by which they were well known. Your
committee says, by the French, they "were known
by the name 'les rapides de la rivière des Moines;"
"by the Americans, they were called the 'Des
Moines rapids.' "Both these phrases are names,
and not descriptions," says the committee. See
report 1842, page 10. This is true: they are names;
and these names were well known to many per-
sons, and had been for many years, before the State
Government was formed. Now, if the convention
had intended to refer to these rapids, would they
not have used one or the other of these names? If
they had wanted to call for these rapids, is it pos-
sible that, out of forty members, the most intelligent
men in the country, not one of them knew the name
of a rapids so noted as the committee represents
this to be? Is it not incredible, if they intended to
refer to these rapids, that they should have dropped
the true name in both languages, and have used a
name by which these rapids were never known,
either before or afterwards? Would they not have
used the very name by which the rapids were
known? Would they not have made the matter
still more certain, by saying "the Des Moines
rapids" in the Mississippi river? This would have
fixed the rapids beyond all dispute in the Missis-
sippi river; and how perfectly "easy" this would
have been.

The convention did not use either one or the
other of these names; the convention used no name
-and for the very best reason in the world they
used no name: that is, because the rapids which
they referred to had no name. They were but lit-
tle known. They were high up in a wilderness.
An occasional hunter had seen them; the trappers
had sometimes passed them in their canoes; per-
haps a few traders had seen them; and the survey-
or, John C. Sullivan, had seen them. He had sur-
veyed the Indian boundary in 1816, four years be-
fore the convention was held. When the conven-
tion met, they called upon him and other gentlemen
for information about the rapids: so we learn from
the remaining members of that convention--and
perhaps they know something more about it than
our commitee. Sullivan was prepared to give
them the information wanted. The rapids which
he had visited were but about nine miles, or, as the
witness says, but "a short distance north of the In-
dian boundary line." These were at the Great
Bend. The country was wholly new.
This was,

no doubt, the first public notice which had ever
been taken of these rapids. Of course, then, they
had no name. The convention used them as if
they had no name, and were noticed in a public
manner for the first time. It was certainly not
known then that there were any other rapids in the
Des Moines river above. It is not possible to mag-
nity anything into a rapids which can be found be-
low. The phrase "the rapids of the river Des
Moines" was used as a description, and not as a
name. Of course, the description belongs only to
rapids in the Des Moines river. It could not de-
scribe the rapids in the Mississippi river.

"Les rapides de la rivière Des Moines." "The
Des Moines rapids." By the first, the French, and
by the latter, the Americans, called the rapids in
the Mississippi river. "Both these phrases are
names, and not descriptions." So says our commit-
tee; and in this they are correct. These names
are quoted wherever we find them. So are all
names made up of phrases; and especially when
of long use and standing, they are almost invaria-
bly used as quotations. It is probable that this prac-
tice of quoting names and phrases has been fol-
lowed nowhere more closely than by our conven-
tion in forming the constitution of Missouri. Even
the words and phrases, "Senate," "House of Rep-
resentatives," "General Assembly," Supreme
Court,"
," "Chancellor," "circuit courts," "State of
Missouri," "against the peace and dignity of the
State," "great seal of the State of Missouri;" all
these are marked in the constitution as quotations.
And yet the phrase, "the rapids of the river Des
Moines," is not used in the constitution as a quo-
tation; and it is evident, therefore, that the conven-
tion did not use it as a name. If they had trans-
lated it from the French, they would have used it as
a quotation more readily than ever. If they had

[ocr errors]

H. of Reps.

used it as an awkward stagger for the "Des Moines rapids" in the Mississippi river, they would still have used it as a quotation, under the supposition that they had staggered upon the right name. But they did not use it as a quotation, and of course not as a name, but merely as a description. The term "Des Moines rapids" would have been used and quoted as a name, because it was a name of long standing, and well known. But the committee stultify themselves in attempting to stultify our convention. They ought to believe that the convention meant what they said, and said what they meant, and knew what they were doing.

The history of this matter shows that there was nothing French about it-not even a translation of the name of the rapids of the Mississippi river. The words used in the constitution, in describing the boundaries of Missouri, are the same as the words used in the act of Congress for that purpose. The act of Congress, I have stated before, was drawn up in this place, by the honorable John Scott, who was then the Delegate in this House from the Territory of Missouri, and who, with the aid of the committee, gave birth and origin to the act, and to the memorable phrase, "the rapids of the river Des Moines;" and particularly to the use of the memorable "of," which has played so conspicuous a part in all this difficulty. It would be rather awkward to say "the rapids in the river Des Moines" in the Mississippi river; and yet the expression, "the rapids of the river Des Moines" of the Mississippi river, is of precisely the same character and import. And this latter, according to the committee, is the mode of expression used by the convention, only made complete. But neither the Congress which passed the act, nor the convention which adopted the constitution, was the place in which to find such an awkward use, or such an abuse, of our language, as the committee are disposed to fasten upon them.

Besides all this, "the Des Moines rapids" of the Mississippi river were unfit to fix a boundary. They were too long. To call for them to fix the northern boundary, was like calling for the Mississippi river itself. A whole range of counties would have been left in uncertainty by such a call. The convention wanted a point to run to, not a line as long as some of our States. They never called for a line fourteen miles long, instead of a point but eighty yards long. A rapids, eighteen inches deep, falling two feet in eighty yards, with a swift current, but eighty yards long, six hundred feet wide, falling perpendicularly as much as ten or twelve inches, for three or four hundred feet of the width of the stream, is as good a point, and as prominent a monument, as any State could ask to fix ber boundary. And this is the description of the rapids at the Great Bend, and a true one. The convention would not have left a point so suitable as this, and have taken a rapids fourteen miles long.

But "the Des Moines rapids" of the Mississippi river are "upwards of fourteen miles long." They "have had great notoriety since the date of the first settlements above them, and, during the period that Louisiana was held by the French, were known." So says the committee. If, then, the convention had called for them, they would have ascertained their magnitude, and their "fourteen miles of length" and upwards. If they had done so, is it not incredible to suppose that they would have left the north boundary "dancing" through this distance of fourteen miles, when, in one word more, they could have said the line shall run through the lower end, the middle, or the upper end, of "the Des Moines rapids" of the Mississippi river? But they said no such thing. Is it not incredible, then, to suppose they could have meant any such thing? Does anybody believe they did?

Congress wanted "natural and striking objects of great notoriety and magnitude" in fixing the boundaries. So says the committee. If this was all they wanted, and they were regardless of the size and shape of the State, the mouth of the Des Moines was the very thing. This was only one mile and a half south of the "Des Moines rapids," and was a "prominent monument" and a notable point. It is strange the convention did not fix on this, in preference to a rapids fourteen miles in length, if they were regardless of the shape and size of the State. But they were not regardless of these things. honorable John Scott says they wanted to make "the Missouri river run through the centre of the State from west to east." This was natural enough, and no doubt the feelings of the whole convention. A memorial of the Legislature of the Territory of

The

27TH CONG....3D SESS.

Missouri prayed for a line on the parallel of latitude passing through the mouth of Rock river. Then they would have struck the Des Moines sixty or seventy miles above the mouth, if not more. For want of information, it was impossible for them to be entirely accurate; and they might still have failed to get an equal amount of territory on each side of the Missouri river.

[ocr errors]

The expression "down the middle of the main fork of the Des Moines" is used in the Constitution. "The main fork" was used to mean something. It must have been known there was no fork near the mouth. The hunters and trappers had no doubt been up the river some distance. Sullivan and his party had not travelled up the river, but had gone across the country from the Indian boundary to the rapids. He may have believed another branch of the river put in at the northern point of the Great Bend. But near the mouth of the Des Moines it must have been well known there was no fork; and the convention had information, no doubt, that there was no fork within any short distance of the mouth-certainly not within the reach even of the upper end of the "Des Moines rapids" of the Mississippi river. If so, then the convention did not call for these rapids, but for a point much higher up the Des Moines river, and above the "fork" of that river, as they supposed.

The committee, in the report of 1840, says: "It is preposterous to suppose that Congress, after acting with so much precision on all the other lines of Missouri, should leave the northern one dancing about between four or five unknown, nameless, and inconsiderable rapids, over a breadth of fifty miles of country, the extent of which was then unknown." "Unknown, nameless, and inconsiderable rapids." They were "unknown;" and this is the very reason why the precise rapids were not designated. We have no evidence that the convention knew of the existence of any more than one rapids in the river Des Moines when the constitution was formed, and the north boundary was not intended to be left "dancing" between several rapids; yet, unfortunately, such seems to have been the case, from our recent surveys. But, as we claim the lowest rapids in the river, it is not very important that we were ignorant of the existence of any above them. The discovery of these additional rapids will hardly change our boundary, and drive us from the Des Moines into the Mississippi, if we were entitled to rapids in the former river originally.

The committee says, in the report of 1842, that the people of Missouri Territory, in their petition to be admitted into the Union, "indicate, generally, to Congress, a boundary for their future State; and they urge, both with good sense and force, its adoption by Congress, on the ground that it would 'include all the country to the north and west to which the Indian title had been extinguished;' and yet the line to which Missouri now claims is considerably to the north of what then formed the Indian cession." [See page 6.] We admit all this; and if it be true that the people of the Territory thus petitioned, then we offer this fact, and the fact that the northern boundary of the State is not required to correspond with the north Indian boundary, as another evidence that this Indian boundary was not intended to be the State boundary. The convention, I have no doubt, intended to make the meridian line on which the western State boundary runs, and the western Indian boundary line, correspond, so far as to make them run upon the same track; because the impression was, that they did run upon the same track. I admit they failed to do so. If they had intended the Indian boundary north to be the State boundary north, they would of course have required these two lines to correspond also. But the convention did not require these two lines to correspond; and it is, therefore, clear that they did not intend this Indian boundary to be the State boundary. Then, where did they intend to put the State bound. ary? Your committee says, the people of the Territory petitioned for "all the country to the north and west to which the Indian title had been extinguished." If so, they would not themselves, by their convention, have adopted a boundary south of the old Indian boundary, including less territory than they prayed for. By doing so, they would not have "included all the country to the north and west to which the Indian title had been extinguished." Then, the convention could not have intended to fix the northern boundary south of the old Indian boundary. If so, it follows that the State bound

Missouri Boundary Line-Mr. J. C. Edwards.

ary cannot call for the "Des Moines rapids," in the Mississippi river; because, even the upper end of these rapids are several miles south of the Indian boundary. If the convention did not intend the Indian boundary to be the State boundary, (and this they clearly did not intend,) and if the convention did not intend to locate this boundary south of the old Indian boundary, (and this, just as clearly, they did not intend,) then it follows that they located the State boundary north of the old Indian boundary.

I regret that I have not been able to see this petition to which your committee refers. A close examination of it might throw some additional light on this subject. If I understand the committee cor rectly, they say the petitioners asked for all the country "to which the Indian title had been extinguished;" but they do not say that the petitioners ask for no more country than that "to which the Indian title had been extinguished;" and yet they leave the impression that the petitioners did ask for no more, and that they acted "both with good sense and force" in asking for no more. I have not been able to find this petition; and I regret that I have not, because I have a memorial on this subject, of a character very different from that petition; and a memorial, too, from the highest authority in the Territory. It is the memorial of the Legislature of the Territory of Missouri, adopted at St. Louis, the 22d day of November, 1818, a little more than a year before the act of Congress was passed to authorize the people of the Territory to form a constitution and State government; and this memorial was referred to the select committee which draughted said act of Congress, on the 8th day of December, 1819-but a little more than three months before said act of Congress was passed. It is hardly probable that anything of a later date, on this subject, was presented to Congress. Now, this memorial, in describing the boundaries prayed for by the people of the Territory, says: "Thence, due north, to a point due west of the MOUTH OF ROCK RIVER; thence, due east, to the middle of the main channel of the Mississippi, OPPOSITE THE MOUTH OF ROCK RIVER." (See Executive Papers, vol. 1, 1st sess. 16th Congress, doc. No. 4. This memorial will be found as quoted, and at the place referred to.) The boundary here prayed for is even north of the parallel of latitude running through the rapids of the river Des Moines, at the Great Bend in said river. It is clear, from this memorial, that the wish and the general sense of the people of the Territory was, that the northern boundary of the State should be located north of the old Indian boundary.

At that early day, when the country was hardly known, and when the territory prayed for was deemed of little or no value, and when this Government was as anxious to foster the interests and grant the prayers of Missouri as she is now to countenance the demands and to aid the encroachments and to encourage the groundless pretensions of Iowa, Congress would not have hesitated to grant the territory which the people petitioned for. If 1 am asked why the act of Congress and the constitution of the State did not call for the precise boundaries prayed for in this memorial, and especially for the mouth of Rock river, I answer, by giving the words of the honorable John Scott, who was then our Delegate in Congress, and who drew up the act of Congress, and who was also in the convention which formed the constitution of the State. He says that, at the time the act was passed, he conversed with several, who had some knowledge of the country, about the boundaries; "and they all concurred that it would be useless to embrace that part of the country that would lie between the river Des Moines and the Mississippi, as it was a mere gore-a low willow bar between the Mississippi and Des Moines river, as they said, running nearly parallel for some sixty miles." (H. Doc. 48, p. 8, 2d sess., 27th Congress.) For this reason, the act of Congress did not call for the mouth of Rock river, but stopped the northern boundary at the rapids of the river Des Moines. In adopting the constitution, the convention followed the act of Congress, by using the same language in describing the boundaries. The boundary prayed for in this memorial annihilates the idea that the "Des Moines rapids," in the Mississippi river, were called for to fix the parallel of latitude on which the northern boundary was to run. If any object, not in the northern line itself, had been called for to fix that line, it would, under this memorial, have been the mouth of Rock river,

H. of Reps.

and not the rapids at the mouth of the Des Moines river.

The committee have dragged into their report the recent legislation of Congress, the legislation of Missouri, old and new Indian treaties, old and new maps and map-makers, and all other sorts of rubbish conceivable. I have neither time nor inclination now to undertake the useless task of wading through all this trash.

The boundaries of Missouri were fixed by her constitution. With this constitution fixing her boundaries, Congress admitted the State into the Union. By this admission, Congress sanctioned the boundaries adopted by the State. As these boundaries were fixed originally, so they remain to this day, except where they have been altered by consent of both parties--the State and the United States-in a legal and constitutional manner. By a simple act, Congress can give her consent to alter a boundary. Not so with the State of Missouri. Her boundaries are part of her constitutional law. They can be altered only as she alters her constitution, and in but one of two ways: 1st, by a convention; 2d, by a vote of two-thirds of each branch of the Legislature at two successive sessions. This has never been done except in one case, and that case not in reference to the territory now in dispute. The western boundary, on the north side of the Missouri river, was so changed as to take the Platte country into the State. This was done by changing our constitution, and then getting an act of Congress approving that change. Our boundaries, then, stand to this day just as they were fixed originally, with the exception named.

It will be useless, then, to trouble the committee by examining Indian treaties, the legislation of Congress in forming land districts, the legislation of Missouri in forming new counties, the action of blundering treaty makers, or the maps of still more blundering map-makers, who have never succeeded in giving accurately even the boundaries of all our counties, and even where they have been designated by range, township, and sectional lines; much less the boundaries of the State, which we not only concede, but contend, were never defined and run and marked till recently. Blundering in legislating, in treaty-making, and map-making, cannot alter our constitutional boundaries. I shall pass over all this rubbish, then, and devote my limited time to more important matters.

The committee determines on the old Indian boundary as the State boundary. This is not, and cannot be, the State boundary; because it is not a parallel of latitude, and the State boundary is a parallel of latitude. And further: it is not, and cannot be, the State boundary; because the State boundary is a parallel of latitude passing through "the rapids of the river Des Moines;" and no parallel of latitude which touches any part of the north Indian boundary line can touch any "rapids of the river Des Moines," or any part of the "Des Moines rapids" in the Mississippi river. If the convention had intended the Indian boundary to be the State boundary north, they would have said so, and would have required the Indian boundary and the State boundary to correspond. A failure to do so, is conclusive evidence that they did not intend the Indian boundary to be the State boundary on the north. Besides, the Committee on Territories admit, in their reports both of 1840 and 1842, that the Indian boundary line is not the State boundary line. (See pages 8 and 11, H. Doc. 2, 1840; and page 11, H. Doc. 791, 1842.)

Let us next examine the western boundary. This is not without its difficulty, too; yet there is none of a character very serious about it. The meridian line on which the western boundary runs, is required to correspond with the Indian boundary. The Indian boundary runs from a point on the north bank of the Missouri river, opposite the mouth of the Kansas river, one hundred miles north. It is urged that this correspondence will arrest the western boundary of the State at the end of the Indian boundary line, and that the northern bonndary must start eastward from this point. This is not so. The mistake originates in confounding the correspondence required between the Indian boundary and the meridian line, with a correspondence between the Indian boundary and the western boundary of the State. In this matter the committee and myself, for once, agree.

I said it was not the Indian boundary and the western boundary which were to correspond, but the Indian boundary and the meridian line on which the western boundary runs. And this dis

27TH CONG....3D SESS.

tinction will be found important in settling this point. The difficulty in reference to the western boundary is in these words: "making the said line correspond with the Indian boundary line." "Said line."

What line do these words refer to?

In describing the boundaries, the words "said line" are once used, and the words "Indian boundary line" are once used; and the word "line" is nowhere else used in the description, except where it is qualified by the word "meridian,” making in a "meridian line." Of the correctness of this assertion anybody will be convinced by an inspection of the act of Congress, and of the first article of the constitution of Missouri. Let us begin to read at the southwestern corner of the State. The boundary runs "thence, from the point aforesaid, north, along the said meridian line, to the intersection of the parallel of latitude which passes through the rapids of the river Des Moines, making the said line correspond with the Indian boundary line." What line do the words "said line" refer to? They must refer to some "line" mentioned in the preceding part of the law. If so, then they must refer to the "meridian line passing through the middle of the mouth of the Kansas river, where the same empties into the Missouri river." Of course they do refer to this, because no other line is mentioned in the law. However badly the description may be expressed, if badly expressed, still the language used is grammatical and accurate; and we must take it as we find it, and construe it accordingly.

What is meant by making this "meridian line" and the "Indian boundary line" correspond? Are they to begin together? Are they to run on the same track? Are they to terminate at the same point? If so, they will never correspond, because in neither of these particulars do they agree, and

never can.

To get the idea here to be conveyed, will require a little attention from those who do not understand the direction of the Missouri and the Kansas rivers. To be short, the former runs southeast, and the latter northeast. The "meridian line" runs through the middle of the mouth of the Kansas river. A line from the "middle of the mouth of the Kansas river," running north, would run diagonally across the Missouri, and strike the bank of that river above a point which would be opposite the middle of the mouth of the Kansas river. The "Indian boundary line" starts on the bank of the Missouri river, opposite the "middle of the mouth of the Kansas river." The starting-point, then, of the Indian boundary line, is below the point where our "meridian line" strikes the north bank of the Missouri river. In a stream as wide as the Missouri, this difference may be one or two miles, or more, depending upon the directions of the two rivers. But there is a difference: no matter how great or how little, it is a difference; and therefore the two lines do not correspond in starting together. Each line runs due north, and therefore must be nearly parallel, and consequently they do not run together. Then they do not correspond by running on the same track. Nor do the two lines correspond by terminating at the same point. The "Indian boundary line" runs one hundred miles north, and stops. The meridian line cannot be cut short. It runs to the north pole, in defiance of either legislation or construction. These lines, then, correspond neither in beginning at the same point, in running on the same track, nor in stopping at the same point. If there be any correspondence, it is only in running parallel; and thus far they do almost correspond. But to make the western boundary correspond exactly with the "Indian boundary line," it would have to leave the "meridian line" in "the middle of the mouth of the Kansas river," and run directly across the Missouri river to the opposite bank, in a direction nearly northeast, till it struck the beginning of the "Indian boundary line," and from thence directly north with the "Indian boundary line." No construction of the act of Congress, or of the constitution of Missouri, can require this. Then, there is no correspondence except in running virtually parallel; and therefore the startingpoint of the northern boundary is not affected by the correspondence required between the Indian boundary and the meridian line, on which the western boundary is required to run.

The honorable gentleman from Iowa [Mr. A. C. DODGE] has invoked the spirit of abolition against

us.

This was useless and wrong. The two subjects have no affinity. This question should be decided upon its own merits. He says the people in the disputed territory will never live in the State

The Tariff Bill—Mr. A. H. H. Stuart.

run.

of Missouri, "on account of their repugnance to the institution of domestic slavery." This may or may not be so. In 1831, the Legislature of Missouri asserted her claim to the disputed territory, and memoralized Congress to have the boundary The country in dispute then belonged to the Indians, and was not ceded to the United States till 1832, one year afterwards. The white settlements commenced there after this time, and after they knew that Missouri claimed the country; and of course they settled there, determined, like good citizens, to abide the result of the case. Many of them may have expected to be in Missouri as soon as this case was determined. But adinit that this is not so. Admit that the people in the territory are all Abolitionists, if the gentleman prefers it. Will this alter the law fixing the boundary of the State? Will this change the constitution of the State, as sanctioned by the act of Congress admitting the State into the Union? Surely not. it change the facts of the case? Surely not. why invoke the spirit of abolition? Let the case be decided according to the law and the facts. You will act wrong to decide it otherwise.

Will

Then

The honorable gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. G. DAVIS] invokes the spirit of cupidity against us. He says the lands belonging to the half-breed Sac and Fox Indians are bounded on the north by an extension of the northern boundary of Missouri to the Mississippi river; and if the northern boundary of the State is north of the old Indian boundary, then the half-breeds will be entitled to more land. The gentleman, although he has made two reports upon this subject, seems yet to have wholly mistaken the nature of the question. It is not a question of expediency, or of dollars and cents; it is a question of law and of fact; and if you attempt to cheat the Indians out of what they are entitled to, by first cheating Missouri out of the boundary she is entitled to, still you will fail to accomplish your object. If you have bounded their lands by the north boundary of Missouri, and not by the old Indian boundary, you cannot force them to take the Indian boundary instead of the State boundary, merely by attempting to put the State boundary where legally it does not exist, and never can run. Suppose you fix the northern boundary of the State on the Indian boundary, when it is not there: will that cut the Indians out of their right to the true State boundary, if they are entitled to the State boundary? Surely not. No court of justice would decide so; and even if we make the magnanimous attempt, we shall still fail to cheat the Indians out of the boundary to which they are entitled. They will hold the lands which you have vested in them, in defiance of any subsequent legislation of yours. But, admitting that this Government could obtain some lands by cheating the half-breeds: would that be a ground for attempting to alter the constitutional boundaries of Missouri? Surely not; and such an argument ought not to be urged or countenanced.

Both of these honorable gentlemen invoke the spirit of prejudice against our claim. They urge that Missouri is already a large State-a great State-a giant State. Admit all this. She has a fruitful soil and a healthy climate. She abounds in the richest minerals, and has the finest navigable streams in the world. She has clear springs, and rich groves, and healthy hills, and verdant valleys, and the most beautiful prairies on the face of the earth. She has a large territory, and a population increasing with astonishing rapidity, and must, at no distant day, be one of the first States in the Union. She is not in debt. Admit all this, and that this flattering picture does not equal the reality; and still this will not change our rights, or compensate Missouri for the loss of part of her territory. These things do not impair her claim. She is not censurable for their existence. She cannot prevent it. Missouri was created for a mighty empire, and cannot fail to fulfil her destiny, if not oppressed too much by legislation. If let alone, her citizens will work their way to wealth, to happiness, to prosperity, and to greatness. But her extent and immense natural advantages do not change her boundaries. They are now as they stood originally; and must so remain, until they are altered, with the consent, not only of this Government, but of the State Government also. Then, not even the spirit of prejudice should be invoked against us. Give us a fair decision.

The honorable gentleman from Iowa charges us with grasping for more territory. This is a mistake. We would not willingly encroach upon our

H. of Reps..

neighbor. We feel a deep interest in her welfare and prosperity, and in her improvement and advancement to the dignity of a State, and of a member of the Confederacy. But she has ample_territory, and enough to spare for two more States. Iowa is encroaching on us, and grasping part of our territory; and the United States, like all tender mothers, is taking sides with her infant child against the older one, in sustaining her groundless pretensions. This course is well enough with children; but we are engaged in no child's play. We are in earnest in asserting our rights. We do not ask for more territory. We claim that which is already our own. To this we are entitled. This we intend to have. We ask you to examine our case impartially, if you can. If you cannot, as impartially as you can. Do not charge us with grasping what is not our own. The territory we claim is our own. You will find it so, when you examine the case. Weigh the law and the facts of our case for yourselves, and then give us such a decision, on the law and the facts, as would be given in any court of justice. We ask for nothing more; we will submit to nothing

less.

[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. A. H. H. STUART,

OF VIRGINIA,

In the House of Representatives, July 7, 1842— On the bill "to provide revenue from imports, and to change and modify existing laws imposing duties on imports, and for other purposes.'

The bill being under consideration in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union

Mr. ALEXANDER H. H. STUART, of Virginia, rose and said:

Mr. CHAIRMAN: Nothing could be more gratifying to my feelings than to witness the calm and forbearing temper in which this debate has thus far been conducted. Heretofore, the introduction of a tariff bill, of any character, into the House of Representatives, has been the signal for the display of the most violent partisan feelings and narrow sectional prejudices; but, upon this occasion, the discussion has been characterized by a spirit of courtesy and liberality which, I am sure, the whole country will join me in applauding as highly honorable to the Representatives of a free and enlightened people.

In the few remarks which I propose to submit, I shall endeavor to follow the good example of those who have preceded me. I shall speak my own sentiments with all becoming frankness and candor; but I trust I shall not so far forget the obligations of decorum and parliamentary propriety as to assail rudely the feelings, the motives, or the opinions of those who are opposed to me. Freedom of discussion, and toleration of opinion, are two of the vital principles of our Republican institutions; and I will ever be among the last to disturb or destroy either of them.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the bill now under consideration, when its provisions and purposes are rightly understood, admits of but little debate. If I understand it correctly, it is simply a revenue bill. It is not, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, a bill for protection. It comes to us under the auspices of the Committee of Ways and Means. Its purpose is to raise just so much money as will be necessary to defray the expenses of the Government, administered with all practicable economy; and, as subordinate to this primary consideration, it proposes, incidentally, to afford protection to the great agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial interests of the country. The question of protection per se, as something substantive and distinct from revenue, does not arise under it; and I shall, therefore, not deem it necessary on this occasion to discuss the merits of that policy. In my opinion, that question is not likely soon to arise; for I know no member of either House of Congress who desires any protection to either of the great interests of the country, beyond what will be afforded by a well-adjusted revenue tariff. But if there be any who go further, I wish to announce distinctly, in the outset, that I am not one of them.

« PreviousContinue »