Notwithstanding the proverbial tendency of biographers to contract what Macaulay has called “the disease of admiration,” no one who can lay claim to any strength of mind need allow the fear of such an imputation to prevent him from doing justice to a public man whose life, for whatever reason, he has undertaken to write. But that my readers may judge of the degree of my exposure to this malady, a frank explanation of the circumstances under which I came to write this work is due both to them and to myself.

In the summer of 1880, the executors and the nearest surviving relatives of Mr. Buchanan asked me to allow them to place in my hands the whole collection of his private papers, with a view to the preparation of a biographical and historical work concerning his public and private life. This duty could not have been undertaken by me, without an explicit understanding that I was to treat the subject in an entirely independent and impartial spirit. To be of much value, the work, as I conceived, must necessarily be, to some extent, a history of the times in which Mr. Buchanan acted an important part as a public man. Moreover, although I had been for far the greater part of this period an attentive observer of public affairs, I had no special interest in Mr. Buchanan’s fame, and was never personally known to him. I could have no object, therefore, of any kind, to subserve, save the truth of history; nor did the representatives ivof Mr. Buchanan desire me, in assuming the office of his biographer, to undertake that of an official eulogist. I have sought for information, aside from the papers of the late President, in many quarters where I knew that I could obtain it; but the opinions, inferences and conclusions contained in these volumes are exclusively my own, excepting in the few instances in which I have expressly quoted those of other persons. No one has exercised or endeavored to exercise the slightest influence over what I have said of Mr. Buchanan, and I acknowledge and have felt no loyalty to his reputation beyond the loyalty that every man owes to justice and to truth.

I have thought it proper to say this much concerning my relations to the family of Mr. Buchanan, for two reasons. The President, by his will, appointed as his biographer a personal friend, the late Mr. William B. Reed of Philadelphia, in whom he had great confidence, and who was a very accomplished writer. But Mr. Reed was prevented by private misfortunes from doing anything more than to examine Mr. Buchanan’s voluminous papers, and to prepare two introductory chapters of the intended Life. Of these I could make no use, as they did not accord with my method of treating the subject. After Mr. Reed had surrendered the task which he had undertaken, the papers were placed in the hands of the late Judge John Cadwallader of Philadelphia, another personal friend of the President. This gentleman died before he had begun to write the proposed work; and when the papers, which had been placed in his hands by the executors, came into mine, along with another large collection from Wheatland, I had to subject them to an entirely new arrangement and classification, before anything could be done. In resorting to a stranger as the biographer of Mr. Buchanan, his executors and friends did what circumstances had rendered unavoidable. The only assurance I can give is that I have had no reason to be otherwise than strictly faithful vto what I believe to be the truth concerning the whole of Mr. Buchanan’s career.

The other reason for a candid explanation of my relation to this subject will occur to every one. Mr. Buchanan’s administration of the Government during the four years which preceded the commencement of our civil war, is a topic upon which friends and foes have widely differed. But no unprejudiced person who now examines the facts can doubt that, in many minds, injustice has been done to him. Perhaps this was inevitable, considering that a sectional civil war, of vast magnitude and attended with great bitterness, followed immediately after his retirement from office, when a political party which had been in opposition to his administration came for the first time into the full control of the Federal Government. It was in the nature of things—or rather, I should say, it was in the nature of man—that those who succeeded to the Government should have charged upon the outgoing administration that they had been remiss in their public duty; and that under the example of men in high places, there should have grown up a popular belief that Mr. Buchanan favored the secession of the Southern States, either purposely, or by lack of the proper energy to meet it in its incipient stages. Charges of this kind found popular credence in a time of unexampled excitement; and since the war was ended, there have been, and doubtless there still are, many persons who regard President Buchanan as a man who could have saved the country from a frightful civil war, if he had had the wish and the energy to nip Secession in the bud.

Such, at all events, were the reproaches with which many of his countrymen pursued him into retirement, and continued to follow him to his grave. Denied as he was a hearing while he lived, because the perils and turmoils of the immediate present unfitted men to look dispassionately back into the past, he may well have desired that in some calmer time, when he had gone viwhere there is neither ignorance, nor prejudice, nor rancor, some one should “read his cause aright to the unsatisfied.” To that better time he looked forward with an undoubting faith in the ultimate justice of his country. I believe that the time which he anticipated has come; and that nothing more than a proper examination of the facts is now needed, to insure for him all the vindication that he could ever have desired.

In regard to this and to every other part of his life, I have found it an interesting task to trace the history of a man whose public and private character were always pure, whose patriotism was co-extensive with his whole country, whose aims were high, and who was habitually conscientious in the discharge of every obligation. My estimate of his abilities and power as a statesman has risen with every investigation that I have made; and it is, in my judgment, not too much to say of him as a President of the United States, that he is entitled to stand very high on the catalogue—not a large one—of those who have had the moral courage to encounter misrepresentation and obloquy, rather than swerve from the line of duty which their convictions marked out for them.

I must say a few words in explanation of my method of describing important public transactions, the interest in which attaches both to the events and to an individual who has borne a chief part in them. There are two modes of historical writing. One is to make a narrative of the course of a foreign negotiation, for example, or of any other public action, without quoting despatches or documents. The other, which scarcely rises above the dignity of compilation, is to let the story be told mainly by the documents. But in biography, where the interest centres for the nonce in some principal actor, I conceive that the better course is to unite the two methods, by so much of description as is needful to illustrate the documents, and by so much of quotation as is needful to give force to the viinarrative. It often happens, however, that the private letters which a person in high official station receives or writes, are quite valuable to the elucidation of official papers and official acts, as they certainly may render a description more lively than it would be without them. The collection of Mr. Buchanan’s papers is exceedingly rich in private correspondence, both with persons towards whom he stood in official, and with other persons towards whom he stood in only social, relations; and I have drawn largely upon these materials. Whether I have accomplished the object at which I have aimed, the reader will judge. It is for me to do no more than to apprise him that I have endeavored to write for his instruction and his entertainment, as well as to render justice to the person whose life I have described. To vindicate in all things the public policy of the party with which he acted, has not been my aim. I have only sought to exhibit it in its true relation to the history of the times. Sincerity and strength of conviction were as characteristic of those to whom Mr. Buchanan was politically opposed, as they were of his political associates.

It is perhaps almost superfluous for me to say that it would have been impracticable for me within the limits of these two volumes to give an account of every debate in Congress in which Mr. Buchanan took part, or of every transaction with which he was connected as a foreign minister, as Secretary of State, or as President. Such of his speeches as I have quoted at length have been selected because of the interest that still attaches to the subject, or some part of it, or because they illustrate his powers as a debater; and in making selections or quotations from his diplomatic papers, I have been unavoidably confined to those which related to critical questions in our foreign relations. It was equally impracticable for me to touch upon the connections which he had with numerous political persons in the course of a public life of forty years. I have drawn a viiinecessary line, and have drawn it between those with whom he stood in some important official relation, or who occupied important public positions, and those who belong in the category of politicians more or less prominent and active, with whom all very eminent public men have more or less to do; including the former and excluding the latter. But of course I have varied this rule in the case of friends who stood in personal rather than political relations with him.

It remains for me to give a description of the materials of which I have made use, and to make the customary acknowledgments to those who supplied them.

Any man who has been in public life for a long period of time, and has attained to the highest public stations, must necessarily have accumulated a vast amount of materials of the highest importance to the elucidation of his own history and of the history of the times in which he has acted. Mr. Buchanan had a habit of preserving nearly everything that came into his hands. The mass of his private correspondence is enormous. I can hardly specify the number of letters that I have had to read, in order to form an adequate idea of the state of the public mind in the opposite sections of the Union during the period when he first had to encounter the secession movement. My recollection of the condition of public opinion at such junctures was pretty vivid, but I could not venture to trust to it without examining the best evidence; for undoubtedly the best evidence of public opinion was to be found in the private letters which at such periods reached the President from all quarters of the country. Many hundreds of such letters have been examined, in order to write, and to write correctly, a very few pages. Mr. Buchanan had also another habit of great utility. Although he did not always keep a regular diary or journal, he rarely held an important conversation, or was engaged in a critical transaction, without writing down an account of it with his own hand iximmediately afterward. These extremely valuable memoranda will be found to throw great light upon many matters that have hitherto been left in obscurity, or have been entirely misrepresented. He was also an indefatigable letter-writer; and of those of his own letters of which he did not keep copies, he procured many from his correspondents after his retirement to Wheatland. He wrote freely, easily, and I should think rapidly. His familiar letters rarely received or required much correction; but his official productions were polished with great care.

The principal mass of these papers, along with the public documents which were connected with them, was collected by Mr. Buchanan himself, in the interval between his retirement from the Presidency and his death. This collection was placed in my hands by his brother and executor, the Rev. Edward Y. Buchanan, D.D., of Philadelphia. Another large collection came to me from Mr. and Mrs. Henry E. Johnston, the present possessors of Wheatland. Mrs. Johnston enriched the collection of papers which were sent to me from Wheatland, by adding to them a great quantity of her uncle’s letters to herself, of which she kindly permitted me to take copies.

From James Buchanan Henry, Esq., nephew of the President, and for some time his private secretary, and from Miss Buchanan, daughter of the Rev. Dr. Buchanan, I have received interesting contributions, which have found their place in my work.

Next to these, the immediate relatives of President Buchanan, I am indebted to the Hon. Jeremiah S. Black, Attorney-General and afterwards Secretary of State during Mr. Buchanan’s Presidency, for important information. I am under like obligations to Brinton Coxe and Joseph B. Baker, Esqs., of Philadelphia, friends of the late President.

And finally, from my own valued friend of many years, Samuel L. M. Barlow, Esq., of New York, I have received two very interesting contributions, which are quoted and credited xin their appropriate places. I am also under a similar obligation to W. U. Hensel, Esq., of Lancaster, and to George Plumer Smith, Esq., of Philadelphia. Nor should I omit to mention the name of Hiram B. Swarr, Esq., co-executor with Dr. Buchanan, and the confidential lawyer of the late President, at Lancaster, as one who has very materially aided my researches.

New York, May 1, 1883.

BIRTH AND PARENTAGE—EARLY EDUCATION AND COLLEGE LIFE—STUDY OF THE LAW—ADMISSION TO THE BAR—SETTLES IN LANCASTER—A VOLUNTEER IN THE WAR OF 1812—ENTERS THE LEGISLATURE OF PENNSYLVANIA—EARLY DISTINCTION—PROFESSIONAL INCOME—RETIRES FROM PUBLIC LIFE—DISAPPOINTMENT IN LOVE—RE-ENTERS PUBLIC LIFE—ELECTED TO CONGRESS.

Autobiography, when it exists, usually furnishes the most interesting and reliable information of at least the early life of any man. Among the papers of Mr. Buchanan, there remains a fragment of an autobiography, without date, written however, it is supposed, many years before his death. This sketch, for it is only a sketch, ends with the year 1816, when he was at the age of twenty-five. I shall quote from it, in connection with the events of this part of his life, adding such further elucidations of its text as the other materials within my reach enable me to give.

The following is the account which Mr. Buchanan gives of his birth and parentage:

“My father, James Buchanan, was a native of the county Donegal, in the kingdom of Ireland. His family was respectable; but their pecuniary circumstances were limited. He emigrated to the United States before the date of the Definitive Treaty of Peace with Great Britain; having sailed from —— in the brig Providence, bound for Philadelphia, in 1783. He was then in the twenty-second year of his age. Immediately after his arrival in PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia, he proceeded to the house of his maternal uncle, Mr. Joshua Russel, in York county. After spending a short time there, he became an assistant in the store of Mr. John Tom, at Stony Batter, a 2country place at the foot of the North Mountain, then in Cumberland (now in Franklin county.)

“He commenced business for himself, at the same place, about the beginning of the year 1788; and on the 16th of April, in the same year, was married to Elizabeth Speer. My father was a man of practical judgment, and of great industry and perseverance. He had received a good English education, and had that kind of knowledge of mankind which prevented him from being ever deceived in his business. With these qualifications, with the facility of obtaining goods on credit at Baltimore at that early period, and with the advantages of his position, it being one of a very few spots where the people of the western counties came with pack horses loaded with wheat to purchase and carry home salt and other necessaries, his circumstances soon improved. He bought the Dunwoodie farm for £1500 in 1794, and had previously purchased the property on which he resided at the Cove Gap.

“I was born at this place on the 23d of April, 1791, being my father’s second child. My father moved from the Cove Gap to Mercersburg, a distance of between three and four miles, in the autumn of 1796, and began business in Mercersburg in the autumn of 1798. For some years before his death, which occurred on the 11th of June, 1821, he had quite a large mercantile business, and devoted much of his time and attention to superintending his farm, of which he was very fond. He was a man of great native force of character. He was not only respected, but beloved by everybody who approached him. In his youth, he held the commission of a justice of the peace; but finding himself so overrun with the business of this office as to interfere with his private affairs, he resigned his commission. A short time before his death, he again received a commission of the peace from Governor Hiester. He was a kind father, a sincere friend, and an honest and religious man.

“My mother, considering her limited opportunities in early life, was a remarkable woman. The daughter of a country farmer, engaged in household employment from early life until after my father’s death, she yet found time to read much, and to reflect deeply on what she read. She had a great fondness for poetry, and could repeat with ease all the passages in her favorite authors which struck her fancy. These were Milton, Pope, Young, Cowper, and Thomson. I do not think, at least until a late period of her life, she had ever read a criticism on any one of these authors, and yet such was the correctness of her natural taste that she had selected for herself, and could repeat, every passage in them which has been admired.

“She was a sincere and devoted Christian from the time of my earliest recollection, and had read much on the subject of theology; and what she read once, she remembered forever. For her sons, as they successively grew up, she was a delightful and instructive companion. She would argue with them, and often gain the victory; ridicule them in any folly or 3eccentricity; excite their ambition, by presenting to them in glowing colors men who had been useful to their country or their kind, as objects of imitation, and enter into all their joys and sorrows. Her early habits of laborious industry, she could not be induced to forego—whilst she had anything to do. My father did everything he could to prevent her from laboring in her domestic concerns, but it was all in vain. I have often, during the vacations at school or college, sat in the room with her, and whilst she was (entirely from her own choice) busily engaged in homely domestic employments, have spent hours pleasantly and instructively in conversing with her. She was a woman of great firmness of character and bore the afflictions of her later life with Christian philosophy. After my father’s death, she lost her two sons, William and George Washington, two young men of great promise, and a favorite daughter. These afflictions withdrew her affections gradually more and more from the things of this world—and she died on the 14th of May, 1833, at Greensburg, in the calm but firm assurance that she was going home to her Father and her God. It was chiefly to her influence that her sons were indebted for a liberal education. Under Providence, I attribute any little distinction which I may have acquired in the world to the blessing which He conferred upon me in granting me such a mother.”

The parents of Mr. Buchanan were both of Scotch-Irish descent, and Presbyterians. At what time this branch of the Buchanan family emigrated from Scotland to Ireland is not known; but John Buchanan, the grandfather of the President, who was a farmer in the county of Donegal in Ireland, married Jane Russel, about the middle of the last century. She was a daughter of Samuel Russel, who was also a farmer of Scotch-Presbyterian descent in the same county. James Buchanan, their son, and father of the President, was brought up by his mother’s relatives. Elizabeth Speer, the President’s mother, was the only daughter of James Speer, who was also of Scotch-Presbyterian ancestry, and who emigrated to Pennsylvania in 1756. James Speer and his wife (Mary Patterson) settled at first on a farm ten miles from Lancaster, and afterwards at the foot of the South Mountain between Chambersburg and Gettysburg. It is told in some memoranda which now lie before me, that in 1779, James Speer left the “Covenanted Church,” on account of difficulties with Mr. Dobbins, his pastor, and was afterwards admitted to full communion in the Presbyterian congregation under the care of the Rev. John Black. This incident 4sufficiently indicates the kind of religious atmosphere in which Mrs. Buchanan grew up; and the letters of both parents to their son, from which I shall have occasion to quote frequently, afford abundant evidence of that deep and peculiar piety which characterized the sincere Christians of their denomination. They were married on the 16th of April, 1788, when Mrs. Buchanan was just twenty-one, and her husband twenty-seven. Eleven children were born to them between 1789 and 1811. James, the future President, was born April 23d, 1791.

Of his early education and his college life, he gives this account:

“After having received a tolerably good English education, I studied the Latin and Greek languages at a school in Mercersburg. It was first kept by the Rev. James R. Sharon, then a student of divinity with Dr. John King, and afterwards by a Mr. McConnell and Dr. Jesse Magaw, then a student of medicine, and subsequently my brother-in-law. I was sent to Dickinson College in the fall of 1807, where I entered the junior class.

“The college was in a wretched condition; and I have often regretted that I had not been sent to some other institution. There was no efficient discipline, and the young men did pretty much as they pleased. To be a sober, plodding, industrious youth was to incur the ridicule of the mass of the students. Without much natural tendency to become dissipated, and chiefly from the example of others, and in order to be considered a clever and a spirited youth, I engaged in every sort of extravagance and mischief in which the greatest proficients of the college indulged. Unlike the rest of this class, however, I was always a tolerably hard student, and never was deficient in my college exercises.

“A circumstance occurred, after I had been a year at college, which made a strong and lasting impression upon me. During the September vacation, in the year 1808, on a Sabbath morning, whilst I was sitting in the room with my father, a letter was brought to him. He opened it, and read it, and I observed that his countenance fell. He then handed it to me and left the room, and I do not recollect that he ever afterwards spoke to me on the subject of it. It was from Dr. Davidson, the Principal of Dickinson College. He stated that, but for the respect which the faculty entertained for my father, I would have been expelled from college on account of disorderly conduct. That they had borne with me as best they could until that period; but that they would not receive me again, and that the letter was written to save him the mortification of sending me back and having me rejected. Mortified to the soul, I at once determined upon my course. Dr. John King was at the time pastor of the congregation to which my 5parents belonged. He came to that congregation shortly after the Revolution, and continued to be its pastor until his death. He had either married or baptized all its members. He participated in their joys as well as their sorrows, and had none of the gloomy bigotry which too often passes in these days for superior sanctity. He was, I believe, a trustee of the college, and enjoyed great and extensive influence wherever he was known. To him I applied with the greatest confidence in my extremity. He gave me a gentle lecture—the more efficient on that account. He then proposed to me, that if I would pledge my honor to him to behave better at college than I had done, he felt such confidence in me that he would pledge himself to Dr. Davidson on my behalf, and he did not doubt that I would be permitted to return. I cheerfully complied with this condition; Dr. King arranged the matter, and I returned to college, without any questions being asked; and afterwards conducted myself in such a manner as, at least, to prevent any formal complaint. At the public examination, previous to the commencement, I answered without difficulty every question which was propounded to me. At that time there were two honors conferred by the college. It was the custom for each of the two societies to present a candidate, and the faculty decided which of them should have the first honor, and the second was conferred upon the other candidate as a matter of course. I had set my heart upon obtaining the highest, and the society to which I belonged unanimously presented me as their candidate. As I believed that this society, from the superior scholarship of its members, was entitled to both, on my motion we presented two candidates to the faculty. The consequence was, that they rejected me altogether, gave the first honor to the candidate of the opposite society, and the second to Mr. Robert Laverty, now of Chester county, assigning as a reason for rejecting my claims that it would have a bad tendency to confer an honor of the college upon a student who had shown so little respect as I had done for the rules of the college and for the professors.

“I have scarcely ever been so much mortified at any occurrence of my life as at this disappointment, nor has friendship ever been manifested towards me in a more striking manner than by all the members of the society to which I belonged. Mr. Laverty, at once, in the most kind manner, offered to yield me the second honor, which, however, I declined to accept. The other members of the society belonging to the senior class would have united with me in refusing to speak at the approaching commencement, but I was unwilling to place them in this situation on my account, and more especially as several of them were designed for the ministry. I held out myself for some time, but at last yielded on receiving a kind communication from the professors. I left college, however, feeling but little attachment towards the Alma Mater.”

In regard to the danger of his expulsion from the college, which Mr. Buchanan has frankly recorded in his autobiographical 6fragment, I find no other reference to it. But I have seen in the note-books of his studies and in the notes which he kept of lectures that he attended, abundant proof that he was, as he says, “a tolerably hard student.” He seems to have had a strong propensity to logic and metaphysics, and of these studies there are copious traces in his own handwriting. The incident which he relates concerning his disappointment in not receiving one of the highest of the college honors at his graduating “commencement,” is thus touched upon in a letter from his father:

Dear Son:—

Yours is at hand (though without date) which mortifies us very much for your disappointment, in being deprived of both honors of the college, especially when your prospect was so fair for one of them, and more so when it was done by the professors who are acknowledged by the world to be the best judges of the talents and merits of the several students under their care. I am not disposed to censure your conduct in being ambitious to have the first honors of the college; but as it was thought that Mr. F. and yourself were best entitled to them, you and he ought to have compounded the matter so as to have left it to the disposition of your several societies, and been contented with their choice. The partiality you complain of in the professors is, no doubt, an unjust thing in them, and perhaps it has proceeded from some other cause than that which you are disposed to ascribe to them.

Often when people have the greatest prospects of temporal honor and aggrandizement, they are all blasted in a moment by a fatality connected with men and things; and no doubt the designs of Providence may be seen very conspicuously in our disappointments, in order to teach us our dependency on Him who knows all events, and they ought to humble our pride and self-sufficiency...... I think it was a very partial decision, and calculated to hurt your feelings. Be that as it will, I hope you will have fortitude enough to surmount these things. Your great consolation is in yourself, and if you can say your right was taken from you by a partial spirit and given to those to whom it ought not to be given, you must for the present submit. The more you know of mankind, the more you will distrust them. It is said the knowledge of mankind and the distrust of them are reciprocally connected......

I approve of your conduct in being prepared with an oration, and if upon delivery it be good sense, well spoken, and your own composition, your audience will think well of it whether it be spoken first, or last, or otherwise......

7We anticipate the pleasure of seeing you shortly, when I hope all these little clouds will be dissipated.

Following Mr. Buchanan’s sketch of his early life, we come to the period immediately after he graduated from Dickinson College.

I came to Lancaster to study law with the late Mr. Hopkins, in the month of December, 1809, and was admitted to practice in November, 1812. I determined that if severe application would make me a good lawyer, I should not fail in this particular; and I can say, with truth, that I have never known a harder student than I was at that period of my life. I studied law, and nothing but law, or what was essentially connected with it. I took pains to understand thoroughly, as far as I was capable, everything which I read; and in order to fix it upon my memory and give myself the habit of extempore speaking, I almost every evening took a lonely walk, and embodied the ideas which I had acquired during the day in my own language. This gave me a habit of extempore speaking, and that not merely words but things. I derived great improvement from this practice.

It would seem that young Buchanan remained at home with his parents after he had graduated until the month of December, when he went to Lancaster and entered himself as a student at law, in the office of Mr. Hopkins. The following letters from his parents give all that I am able to glean respecting the period of his law pupilage, and the choice of a permanent residence after he had been admitted to practice, which was, it seems, in November, 1812.

...... I am very glad to hear you are so well pleased with Lancaster, and with the study of the law.

...... I hope you will guard against the temptations that may offer themselves in this way, or any other, knowing that without religion all other things are as trifles, and will soon pass away...... Your young acquaintances often talk of you, and with respect and esteem. Go on with your studies, and endeavor to be eminent in your profession.

Mr. Buchanan was admitted to the bar in the year which saw the commencement of the war with Great Britain, under the Presidency of Mr. Madison. His early political principles 8were those of the Federalists, who disapproved of the war. Yet, as the following passages in his autobiography show, he was not backward in his duty as a citizen:^[1]

The first public address I ever made before the people was in 1814, a short time after the capture of Washington by the British. In common with the Federalists, generally, of the Middle and Southern States, whilst I disapproved of the declaration of war under the circumstances in which it was made, yet I thought it was the duty of every patriot to defend the country, whilst the war was raging, against a foreign enemy. The capture of Washington lighted up a flame of patriotism which pervaded the whole of Pennsylvania. A public meeting was called in Lancaster for the purpose of adopting measures to obtain volunteers to march for the defence of Baltimore. On that occasion I addressed the people, and was among the first to register my name as a volunteer. We immediately formed a company of dragoons, and elected the late Judge Henry Shippen our captain. We marched to Baltimore, and served under the command of Major Charles Sterret Ridgely, until we were honorably discharged. This company of dragoons was the avant courier of the large force which rushed from Pennsylvania to the defence of Baltimore.

Mr. Buchanan’s entrance into public life is thus described by himself:

In October, 1814, I was elected a member of the House of Representatives, in the Legislature, from the county of Lancaster. The same principles which guided my conduct in sustaining the war, notwithstanding my opposition to its declaration, governed my course after I became a member of the Legislature. An attack was threatened against the city of Philadelphia. The General Government was nearly reduced to a state of bankruptcy, and could scarcely raise sufficient money to maintain the regular troops on the remote frontiers of the country. Pennsylvania was obliged to rely upon her own energies for the defence, and the people generally, of all parties, were ready to do their utmost in the cause.

Two plans were proposed. The one was what was called the Conscription Bill, and similar to that which had been rejected by Congress, reported in the [State] Senate by Mr. Nicholas Biddle, by which it was proposed to divide the white male inhabitants of the State above the age of eighteen into classes of twenty-two men each, and to designate one man by lot from 9the numbers between the ages of eighteen and forty-five of each class, who should serve one year, each class being compelled to raise a sum not exceeding two hundred dollars, as a bounty to the conscript. This army was to be paid and maintained at the expense of the State, and its estimated cost would have been between three and three and one-half million of dollars per annum. The officers were to be appointed by the Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

The other was to raise six regiments under the authority of the State, to serve for three years, or during the war, and to pass efficient volunteer and militia laws.

“On the 1st of February, 1815, Mr. Buchanan delivered his sentiments in regard to the proper mode of defending the Commonwealth, on the bill entitled ‘An act for the encouragement of volunteers for the defence of this Commonwealth.’ He said: ‘Since, then, the Congress have deserted us in our time of need, there is no alternative but either to protect ourselves by some efficient measures, or surrender up that independence which has been purchased by the blood of our forefathers. No American can hesitate which of these alternatives ought to be adopted. The invading enemy must be expelled from our shores; he must be taught to respect the rights of freedom.’

“Again, speaking of the Conscription Bill, he said: ‘This law is calculated to be very unjust and very unequal in its effects. Whilst it will operate as a conscription law upon the poor man in the western parts of the State, where property is not in danger, it will be but a militia law with the rich man in the eastern part of the State, whose property it contemplates defending. The individuals in each class are, to be sure, to pay the two hundred dollars in proportion to their comparative wealth, as a bounty to the substitute or conscript. It will, therefore, be just in its operation among the individuals composing each class, but how will it be with respect to entire classes? Twenty-two men in the city of Philadelphia, whose united fortunes would be worth two million dollars, would be compelled to pay no more than twenty-two men in the western country, who may not be worth the one-thousandth part of that sum.’

“After Mr. Buchanan had stated that he would have voted for the Enlistment Bill, had he not been necessarily absent when it passed the House, he said: ‘After all, I must confess, that in my opinion an efficient volunteer and militia bill, together with the troops which can be raised under the Voluntary Enlistment Bill, will be amply sufficient for the defence of the city of Philadelphia. We need not be afraid to trust to the patriotism or courage of the people of this country when they are invaded. Let them have good militia officers, and they will soon be equal to any troops of the world. Have not the volunteers and militia on the Niagara frontier fought in such a manner as to merit the gratitude of the nation? Is it to 10be supposed that the same spirit of patriotism would animate the man who is dragged out by a conscription law to defend his country, that the volunteer or militiaman would feel? Let us, then, pass an efficient militia law, and the Volunteer Bill which is now before us. Let us hold out sufficient inducement to our citizens to turn out, as volunteers. Let their patriotism be stimulated by self-interest, and I have no doubt that in the day of trial there will be armies of freemen in the field sufficiently large for our protection. Your State will then be defended at a trifling comparative expense, the liberties of the people will be preserved, and their willingness to bear new burdens be continued.’

“The bill having passed the Senate, was negatived in the House, on the 3d of February, 1815, by the decisive vote of 51 to 36. It was entitled ‘An act to raise a military force for the defence of this Commonwealth.’ The Senate and the House thus differed in regard to the best mode of defending the Commonwealth; the one being friendly to the Conscription Bill, and the other to the Voluntary Enlistment and Volunteer Bill. All agreed upon the necessity of adopting efficient means for this purpose. Before any final action was had upon the subject, the news of peace arrived, and was officially communicated by Governor Snyder to the Legislature on the 17th February, 1815.”

So open and decided was I in my course in favor of defending the country, notwithstanding my disapproval of the declaration of war, that I distinctly recollect that the late William Beale, the shrewd, strong-minded, and influential Democratic Senator from Mifflin county, called upon me, and urged me strongly during the session to change my [political] name, and be called a Democrat, stating that I would have no occasion to change my principles. In that event, he said he would venture to predict that, should I live, I would become President of the United States. He was mistaken, for although I was friendly to a vigorous prosecution of the war, I was far from being a “Democrat” in principle.

Dear Son:—

I received your letter of the 9th ult. from Baltimore, which stated that you were then honorably discharged. This news was very gratifying, as at that moment we received accounts that the British were making their attack on Baltimore, both by sea and land, and consequently our forebodings with respect to your fate were highly wound up......

You say you are in nomination for the Assembly. I am not certain that it will be to your advantage, as it will lead you off from the study and practice of the law. If by your industry and application you could become eminent at the bar, that would be preferable to being partly a politician and partly a lawyer. However, you must now be directed by circumstances and the counsel of your friends.

11...... The Assembly has passed a law for the benefit of the poor, which in fact prevents them from paying any debts, as they hold all under cover of the reserve made them in the law. So much for popularity at the expense of justice.

Dear Son:—

I received yours by Mr. Evans, informing me you were elected to the Assembly. The circumstances of your being so popular amongst your neighbors as to give you a majority over Isaac Wayne, who, I suppose, was one of the highest on your ticket, is very gratifying to me, and I hope your conduct will continue to merit their approbation. But above all earthly enjoyments, endeavor to merit the esteem of heaven; and that Divine Providence who has done so much for you heretofore, will never abandon you in the hour of trial. Perhaps your going to the Legislature may be to your advantage, and it may be otherwise. I hope you will make the best of the thing now. The feelings of parents are always alive to the welfare of their children, and I am fearful of this taking you from the bar at a time when perhaps you may feel it most......

There is now every prospect of a continuation of the war. The terms offered us by the British are such that no true American could comply with, or submit to them...... News has just come to this place that Lord Hill has arrived with 16,000 men.

...... I am glad to find you are well pleased at being a member of the Legislature. Perhaps it may have the effect you mention, that of increasing your business hereafter. I am glad to hear that you mean to proceed with caution, and speak only when you are well prepared for the subject you mean to speak upon. You are young, consequently deficient in experience; therefore you must supply that defect by watchfulness and application, never forgetting that every gift you may possess flows from that Being who has always been your friend, and will continue to be so, if you are in your duty.

Dear Son:—

I expect you are now engaged in repealing many of those laws which have been enacted for prosecuting the war with vigor. As the olive-branch has been presented to us, it will change all our plans, and we will again be permitted to return in peace to our different occupations, and ought to thank heaven for the blessing. This night we are to illuminate this place in consequence of peace. Those who have seen the treaty say it is dishonorable to America; that there are none of those points gained for which we declared war.

...... You appear to hesitate about going to the Legislature again, and I am both unable and unwilling to advise you on that point; but as it appears your business has not decreased by being there last winter, I would have no objection to your going another session, as it would afford you another opportunity of improvement, and perhaps the people of your district may some time elect you to Congress. Could you not get an active young man as a student that could keep your office open in your absence, and do a little business for you?......

You may expect to have many difficulties and dangers to encounter in your passage through life, especially as your situation becomes enviable; but I hope you will always depend upon the protection of that kind Providence, who has dealt so kindly with you, to shield you from the shafts of malicious enemies.

Your mother and the family send their kind love to you, and believe me your loving father,

The next event in his life of which I find any mention in his autobiography, was the delivery of an oration before the Washington Society of Lancaster, July 4, 1815, of which he speaks as follows:

On the 4th of July, 1815, I delivered the oration before the Washington Association of Lancaster, which has been the subject of much criticism. There are many sentiments in this oration which I regret; at the same time it cannot be denied that the country was wholly unprepared for war, at the period of its declaration, and the attempt to carry it on by means of loans, without any resort to taxation, had well nigh made the Government bankrupt. There is, however, a vein of feeling running throughout the whole oration—of which, as I look back to it, I may be excused for being proud—which always distinguishes between the conduct of the administration and the necessity for defending the country. Besides, it will be recollected that this oration was not delivered until after the close of the war. I said: “Glorious it has been, in the highest degree, to the American character, but disgraceful in the extreme to the administration. When the individual States discovered that they were abandoned by the General Government, whose duty it was to protect them, the fortitude of their citizens arose with their misfortunes. The moment we were invaded, the genius of freedom inspired their souls. They rushed upon their enemies with a hallowed fury which the hireling soldiers of Britain could never feel. They taught our foe that the soil of freedom would always be the grave of its invaders.”

I spoke with pride and exultation of the exploits of the navy, and also of the regular army during the last year of the war. The former “has 13risen triumphant above its enemies at home, and has made the proud mistress of the ocean tremble. The people are now convinced that a navy is their best defence.”^[2]

In the conclusion there is a passage concerning foreign influence which must be approved by all. “Foreign influence has been, in every age, the curse of Republics. Her jaundiced eye sees all things in false colors. The thick atmosphere of prejudice, by which she is forever surrounded, excludes from her sight the light of reason; whilst she worships the nations which she favors for their very crimes, she curses the enemies of that nation, even their virtues. In every age she has marched before the enemies of her country, ‘proclaiming peace, when there was no peace,’ and lulling its defenders into fatal security, whilst the iron hand of despotism has been aiming a death-blow at their liberties.” And again, “We are separated from the nations of Europe by an immense ocean. We are still more disconnected from them by a different form of government, and by the enjoyment of true liberty. Why, then, should we injure ourselves by taking part in the ambitious contests of foreign despots and kings?”

No doubt you will have many political enemies to criticise your oration, but you must take the consequences now. It is a strong mark of approbation to have so many copies of it published. I hope to see one of them.

I am busily engaged with my harvest. I am very glad I did not purchase goods as I proposed, as they have fallen greatly in price.

...... Myself and the family are very anxious to see you, yet I am glad that your business is so good that you cannot, with propriety, leave it, yet you must always make your calculations to come as often as you can. Have you agreed to your nomination for the Legislature another session? You know your own situation best. If you think proper to take another seat, it has my approbation. I have read your oration, and I think it well done. Perhaps it is a little too severe, and may hurt the feelings of some of your friends, who have been friendly, independent of politics. I have lent it to a few people who have asked for it, and they all speak well of your performance.

...... It appears from the Lancaster Journal, you are again elected. I wish you may end the next session with the same popularity as a statesman that you gained in the last session.

Mr. Buchanan’s own account of his second term of service in the Legislature is thus given:

I was again elected a member of the House of Representatives in the State Legislature in October, 1815. The currency at that period was in great disorder throughout the Middle, Western, and Southern States, in consequence of the suspension of specie payments occasioned by the war. On the 20th of December, 1815, a resolution was adopted by the House of Representatives, instructing the Committee on Banks, “to inquire into the causes of the suspension of specie payments by the banks within this Commonwealth; and also, whether any or what measures ought to be adopted by the Legislature on this subject.” This committee was composed of Mr. McEuen, of the city; Milliken, of Mifflin; Stewart, of Fayette; and Dysart, of Crawford. On the 12th of January, 1816, Mr. McEuen made a report which concluded with a recommendation that a law should be passed, obliging the banks to pay interest on balances to each other monthly, at the rate of six per cent. per annum, after the 1st of March; also, obliging the banks refusing to pay specie for their notes after the 1st of January, 1817, to pay interest at the rate of eighteen per cent. per annum from the time of demand; and forfeiting the charters of such banks as should refuse to redeem their notes in specie after the 1st of January, 1818. A bare majority of the committee had concurred in the report. The minority had requested me to prepare a substitute for it, and offer it as soon as the report was read. This substitute concluded with a resolution, “that it is inexpedient at this time for the Legislature to adopt any compulsory measures relative to the banks.” The original report and the substitute were postponed, and no action was ever had afterwards upon either.

The substitute states the following to have been the causes of the suspension of specie payments in Pennsylvania:

1. The blockade by the enemy of the Middle and Southern seaports, the impossibility of getting their productions to market, and the consequent necessity imposed upon them to pay in specie to New England the price of the foreign merchandise imported into that portion of the Union.

2. The large loans made by banks and individuals of this and the adjacent States to the Government to sustain the war, and the small comparative loans made in New England, which were paid by an extravagant issue of bank notes. These latter bore but a small proportion to the money expended there. To make up this deficiency, the specie of the Middle and Southern States was drawn from the vaults of these banks, 15and was used by the New England people in commerce, or smuggled to the enemy.

3. The great demand for specie in England.

4. The recent establishment of a number of new banks throughout the interior of Pennsylvania, which drew their capital chiefly from the banks in Philadelphia and thereby weakened them, compelled them first to suspend specie payments. These new banks, in self-defence, were therefore obliged to suspend.

5. The immense importation of foreign goods at the close of the war, and the necessity of paying for them in specie, have continued the suspension.

During this session, and whilst the debates on the subject were proceeding in Congress, I changed my impression on the subject of a Bank of the United States, and became decidedly hostile to such an institution. In this opinion I have never since wavered, and although I have invested much of the profits of my profession in stocks, and was often advised by friends to buy stock in this bank, I always declined becoming a stockholder. Whilst the bill was pending in Congress, I urged Mr. Holgate and other influential Democrats in the House to offer instructions against the measure, but could not prevail with them. I recollect Mr. H. told me that it was unnecessary, as our Democratic Senators in Congress would certainly vote against the measure without any instructions.

Mr. Buchanan appears to have left the Legislature at the end of the session of 1815–16, with a fixed determination to devote himself exclusively to the practice of his profession. He says:

After my second session in the Legislature, I applied myself with unremitting application to the practice of the law. My practice in Lancaster and some of the adjoining counties was extensive, laborious, and lucrative. It increased rapidly in value from the time I ceased to be a member of the Legislature. During the year ending on the 1st of April, 1819, I received in cash for professional services $7,915.92, which was, down to that time, the best year I ever experienced.^[3]

16Among his professional employments at this period, I find the following modest allusion to a cause in which he gained great distinction:

During the session of the Legislature of 1816–17 I alone defended the Hon. Walter Franklin and his associates on articles of impeachment against them before the Senate; and during the session of 1817–18, I defended the same judges on other articles, and had for associates Mr. Condy and Mr. Hopkins. I never felt the responsibility of my position more sensibly than, when a young man between 25 and 26 years of age, I undertook alone to defend Judge Franklin; and although he was anxious I should, again the next year, undertake his cause without assistance, yet I insisted upon the employment of older and more experienced counsel.

As the impeachment case referred to in the close of this sketch was the occasion of Mr. Buchanan’s early distinction at the bar, a brief account of it may be here given. It was a prosecution instituted from political motives, and was a lamentable exhibition of party asperity. Judge Franklin was the president judge of the court of common pleas for a judicial district composed of the counties of Lancaster, Lebanon, and York. His associates were not lawyers. At a period of great political excitement, which had continued since the close of the war with Great Britain, there arose a litigation in Judge Franklin’s court which grew out of one of the occurrences of the war. In July, 1814, the President had made a requisition on the Governor of Pennsylvania for the services of certain regiments of militia. The troops were called and mustered into the Federal service. Houston, a citizen of Lancaster, refused to serve; he was tried by a court-martial, held under the authority of the State, convicted, and sentenced to pay a fine. For this he brought an action in the common pleas against the members of the court-martial and its officer who had collected the fine. On the trial, Judge Franklin ruled that when the militia had been mustered into the service of the United States, the control of the State and its power to punish were ended. The plaintiff, therefore, recovered a verdict. Judge Franklin was subjected to this impeachment for ruling a point of law on which the Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States afterwards differed.

17In a diary kept by a gentleman who watched this impeachment with the deepest interest, I find the following allusion to Mr. Buchanan’s argument:

“This argument was conducted with great ingenuity, eloquence, and address. It made a deep impression. It will tend very much to raise and extend the reputation of Mr. Buchanan, and will have, I hope, a favorable effect upon his future prospects as a lawyer and a politician.”politician.”

The impression produced by Mr. Buchanan’s argument was so strong, that the managers of the impeachment asked for an adjournment before they replied to it. His defence was made upon the sound doctrine that “impeachment” of a judge for a legal opinion, when no crime or misdemeanor has been committed, is a constitutional solecism. The respondent was acquitted, and his advocate acquired a great amount of reputation for so young a man.

With an honorable and distinguished professional career thus opening before him, a favorite in society both from his talents and his character, young, high-spirited and full of energy, it seemed that happiness had been provided for him by his own merits and a kind Providence. But there now occurred an episode in his life which cast upon him a never-ending sorrow. He became engaged to be married to a young lady in Lancaster, who has been described to me, by persons who knew her, as a very beautiful girl, of singularly attractive and gentle disposition, but retiring and sensitive. Her father, Robert Coleman, Esq., a wealthy citizen of Lancaster, entirely approved of the engagement. After this connection had existed for some time, she suddenly wrote a note to her lover and asked him to release her from the engagement. There is no reason to believe that their mutual feelings had in any degree changed. He could only reply that if it was her wish to put an end to their engagement, he must submit. This occurred in the latter part of the summer of 1819. The young lady died very suddenly, while on a visit to Philadelphia, on the 9th of the December following, in the twenty-third year of her age. Her remains were brought to her father’s house in Lancaster, on the next Saturday, just one week from the day on which she left home. “The funeral,” says the diary already quoted from, “took place the next day, 18and was attended by a great number of the inhabitants, who appeared to feel a deep sympathy with the family on this distressing occasion.”

From the same source, I transcribe a little obituary notice, which was published in a Lancaster paper on the 11th of December, and which the diary states was written by Mr. Buchanan:

“Departed this life, on Thursday morning last, in the twenty-third year of her age, while on a visit to her friends in the city of Philadelphia, Miss Anne C. Coleman, daughter of Robert Coleman, Esquire, of this city. It rarely falls to our lot to shed a tear over the mortal remains of one so much and so deservedly beloved as was the deceased. She was everything which the fondest parent or fondest friend could have wished her to be. Although she was young and beautiful, and accomplished, and the smiles of fortune shone upon her, yet her native modesty and worth made her unconscious of her own attractions. Her heart was the seat of all the softer virtues which ennoble and dignify the character of woman. She has now gone to a world where in the bosom of her God she will be happy with congenial spirits. May the memory of her virtues be ever green in the hearts of her surviving friends. May her mild spirit, which on earth still breathes peace and good-will, be their guardian angel to preserve them from the faults to which she was ever a stranger—

The following letter, written by Mr. Buchanan to the father of the young lady, is all that remains of written evidence, to attest the depth of his attachment to her:

My dear Sir:

You have lost a child, a dear, dear child. I have lost the only earthly object of my affections, without whom life now presents to me a dreary blank. My prospects are all cut off, and I feel that my happiness will be buried with her in the grave. It is now no time for explanation, but the time will come when you will discover that she, as well as I, have been much abused. God forgive the authors of it. My feelings of resentment against them, whoever they may be, are buried in the dust. I have now one request to make, and, for the love of God and of your dear, departed 19daughter whom I loved infinitely more than any other human being could love, deny me not. Afford me the melancholy pleasure of seeing her body before its interment. I would not for the world be denied this request.

I might make another, but, from the misrepresentations which must have been made to you, I am almost afraid. I would like to follow her remains to the grave as a mourner. I would like to convince the world, and I hope yet to convince you, that she was infinitely dearer to me than life. I may sustain the shock of her death, but I feel that happiness has fled from me forever. The prayer which I make to God without ceasing is, that I yet may be able to show my veneration for the memory of my dear departed saint, by my respect and attachment for her surviving friends.

May Heaven bless you, and enable you to bear the shock with the fortitude of a Christian.

There is among Mr. Buchanan’s papers a letter written to him by one of his friends, shortly after the death of Miss Coleman, which shows how this affliction immediately affected him, and how it was regarded by persons of high social standing in Pennsylvania, who were not prejudiced by erroneous beliefs in regard to the circumstances which led to the breaking of the engagement.

Dear Sir:—

I hear you have left Lancaster, and have not heard where you have gone to; but I take it for granted the absence will be short. I am writing, I know not why, and perhaps had better not. I write only to speak of the awful visitation of Providence that has fallen upon you, and how deeply I feel it. The thought of your situation has scarcely been absent from my mind ten days. I trust your restoration to your philosophy and courage, and to the elasticity of spirits natural to most young men. Yet time, the sovereign cure of all these, must intervene before much good can be done. The sun will shine again—though a man enveloped in gloom always thinks the darkness is to be eternal. Do you remember the Spanish anecdote? A lady, who had lost a favorite child, remained for months sunk in sullen sorrow and despair. Her confessor, one morning, visited her, and found her, as usual, immersed in gloom and grief. “What!” says he; “have you not forgiven God Almighty?” She rose, exerted herself, joined the world again, and became useful to herself and friends.

20Might I venture to hint advice? It would be to give full scope (contrary to common advice on similar occasions), I say to give full vent and unrestrained license to the feelings and thoughts natural in the case for a time—which time may be a week, two weeks, three weeks, as nature dictates—without scarcely a small effort during that time to rise above the misfortune; then, when this time is past, to rouse, to banish depressing thoughts, as far as possible, and engage most industriously in business. My opinion is that too early an effort to shake off a very heavy affliction is often, if not always, dangerous. An early effort is futile, and worse—an unavailing struggle renders the mind cowardly, and sinks the spirits deeper in gloom. The true way to conquer is to run away at first. The storm which uproots the firmest oak passes harmlessly over the willow.

Forgive all this talk; it opens in my own bosom a wound which a dozen years have not cicatrized, and brings to my recollection a dark period of my own days, the remembrance of which yet chills me with horror.

Two of your cases here may be tried. If they are, I will endeavor to assist your colleague, Mr. Elder, for you, and for your benefit. This is our court week for the civil list......

Mrs. E—— talks much of you, and if she knew I was writing, would have me add her kindest message—indicative of the interest she feels. Farewell.

In the course of Mr. Buchanan’s long subsequent political career, this incident in his early life was often alluded to in partisan newspapers, and in that species of literature called “campaign documents,” accompanied by many perversions and misrepresentations. These publications are each and all unworthy of notice. On one occasion, after he had retired to Wheatland, and when he had passed the age of seventy, he was shown by a friend a newspaper article, misrepresenting, as usual, the details of this affair. He then said, with deep emotion, that there were papers and relics which he had religiously preserved, then in a sealed package in a place of deposit in the city of New York, which would explain the trivial origin of this separation.^[4] His executors found these papers inclosed and sealed separately from all others, and with a direction upon 21them in his handwriting, that they were to be destroyed without being read. They obeyed the injunction, and burnt the package without breaking the seal. It happened, however, that the original of the letter addressed by Mr. Buchanan to the young lady’s father, before her funeral, was not contained in this package. It was found in his private depositaries at Wheatland; and it came there in consequence of the fact that it was returned by the father unread and unopened.

It is now known that the separation of the lovers originated in a misunderstanding, on the part of the lady, of a very small matter, exaggerated by giddy and indiscreet tongues, working on a peculiarly sensitive nature. Such a separation, the commonest of occurrences, would have ended, in the ordinary course, in reconciliation, when the parties met, if death had not suddenly snatched away one of the sufferers, and left the other to a life-long grief. But under the circumstances, I feel bound to be governed by the spirit of Mr. Buchanan’s written instruction to his executors, and not to go into the details of a story which show that the whole occurrence was chargeable on the folly of others, and not on either of the two whose interests were involved.

Among the few survivors of the circle to which this young lady belonged, the remembrance of her sudden death is still fresh in aged hearts. The estrangement of the lovers was but one of those common occurrences that are perpetually verifying the saying, hackneyed by everlasting repetition, that “the course of true love never did run smooth.”

But it ran, in this case, pure and unbroken in the heart of the survivor, through a long and varied life. It became a grief that could not be spoken of; to which only the most distant allusion could be made; a sacred, unceasing sorrow, buried deep in the breast of a man who was formed for domestic joys; hidden beneath manners that were most engaging, beneath strong social tendencies, and a chivalrous old-fashioned deference to women of all ages and all claims. His peculiar and reverential demeanor towards the sex, never varied by rank, or station, or individual attractions, was doubtless in a large degree caused by the tender memory of what he had found, or fancied, in her whom he had lost in his early days by such a cruel fate. If her 22death had not prevented their marriage, it is probable that a purely professional and domestic life would have filled up the measure alike of his happiness and his ambition. It is certain that this occurrence prevented him from ever marrying, and impelled him again into public life, after he had once resolved to quit it. Soon after this catastrophe, he was offered a nomination to a seat in Congress. He did not suppose that he could be elected, and did not much desire to be. But he was strongly urged to accept the candidacy, and finally consented, chiefly because he needed an innocent excitement that would sometimes distract him from the grief that was destined never to leave him.^[5] Great and uninterrupted, however, as was his political and social success, he lived and died a widowed and a childless man. Fortunately for him, a sister’s child, left an orphan at an early age, whom he educated with the wisest care, filled to him the place of a daughter as nearly and tenderly as such a relative could supply that want, adorning with womanly accomplishments and virtues the high public stations to which he was eventually called.

MONROE’S ADMINISTRATION—EMINENT MEN IN CONGRESS—NOTICES OF WILLIAM LOWNDES AND JOHN RANDOLPH OF ROANOKE—JOHN SARGEANT—BUCHANAN BECOMES A LEADING DEBATER—BANKRUPT BILL—CUMBERLAND ROAD—THE TARIFF.

In the autumn of 1820, Mr. Buchanan was elected a Representative in Congress for a district composed of the counties of Lancaster, York, and Dauphin. He was nominated and elected as a Federalist. He took his seat on the 3d of December, 1821.

Of course a young man of nine-and-twenty, who had been for two terms a member of the Legislature of his native State, and had been somewhat active in that body, was already possessed of some powers as a debater. But his political principles, as a national statesman, were yet to be formed. The “Federalism” of the period in which Mr. Buchanan came into public life, and which was professed by those among whom he grew up, chiefly consisted in an opposition to the war of 1812 and to some of the measures of the Administration which conducted it. In the five years which followed the peace of 1815, the sharper lines which had separated the Federal and the Republican (or Democratic) parties, and their distinctive organizations, almost disappeared. Mr. Monroe, who succeeded Mr. Madison, was elected President, for the term commencing March 4, 1817, by a majority of 109 out of 217 electoral votes. At his second election, for the term commencing March 4, 1821, his majority was 118 out of 235. This near approach to unanimity evinces almost an obliteration of party distinctions. Mr. Monroe’s personal popularity and the general confidence that was reposed in him had a considerable influence in producing what 24was called “the era of good feeling.” which prevailed while he administered the government. The Federalists, who had been strongest in the North and the East, were conciliated by his first Inaugural, while his strength was not weakened among the Republicans (or Democrats) of the South. In truth, it was not until the war was over and some of the animosities which it caused had begun to fade, that the attention of men began to be directed to questions of internal administration, which would involve an exploration of the Federal powers and a discussion of policies applicable to a state of peace.

When Mr. Buchanan entered Congress there was no sectionalism to disturb the repose of the country. The Cabinet was a fair representation of the different sections, its members being from Massachusetts, New York, Georgia, South Carolina, Ohio, and Maryland. It remained the same, with one exception only, until Mr. Monroe went out of office in 1824.^[6] It is not easy to trace among the public men of this period any fixed political doctrines such as afterwards came to distinguish the opposing parties. All that can be said is, that in the Middle States those who had been Republicans had a strong tendency to the Virginia principles of State Rights; but what these were, beyond a general tendency to watch and prevent undue expansion of the Federal powers, it would be difficult now to say. In Congress, most of the Eastern representatives were Free Traders, while those of the Middle States were in favor of moderate protection. Among the Southern members there was a disposition to follow a liberal policy in the administration of the government, which was aided by the ability and ambition of Mr. Calhoun, the Secretary of War. But among the members, chiefly confined to the Southwestern States, there was a compact knot of men who were called “Radicals,” in the political nomenclature of that period. It is hard to define them, but their distinctive policy appears to have been a steady resistance to all expenditures of public money, and a persistently strict construction of the Constitution. Thus there cannot be said to have been any well-defined parties at this period, such as the country has since been 25accustomed to. But they began to be formed on the questions relating to finance and the development of the internal resources of the country, which arose during Mr. Monroe’s Presidency, and continued to a later period. Men who had been Federalists and men who had been Republicans, during the previous administrations, passed into the one or the other of the subsequent parties, which assumed new designations, without much real historical connection with the old parties that had preceded them.

The personal composition of the two Houses of Congress at this time presents many interesting names. In the Senate, Rufus King, who had been a Senator during Washington’s Administration, and Nathaniel Macon, who had been a Representative at the same time, gave a flavor of the formative period of the Republic. John Galliard and William Smith (of South Carolina) and James Brown (of Louisiana) were also among the older members. A somewhat younger class of men numbered among them Martin Van Buren, who succeeded General Jackson as President.

Mr. Buchanan always considered it one of the great advantages of his life that he had the benefit, at this early period, of the society of Mr. King and Mr. Macon, and he always spoke in the most grateful terms of their personal kindness to him. The members of the House of Representatives, with one exception, General Smith of Maryland, were younger men. They are spoken of in the following paper, which I find in Mr. Buchanan’s handwriting, and in which he has recorded his impressions of that beau-ideal of a statesman, William Lowndes, of South Carolina, by whose early death, in 1822, the country lost one of the ablest, most accomplished and purest men it has ever produced:^[7]

“I entered the House of Representatives with George McDuffie and Joel R. Poinsett of South Carolina, Andrew Stevenson of Virginia, John Tod of Pennsylvania, John Nelson of Maryland, Reuben H. Walworth and Churchill C. Cambreleng of New York, and Benjamin Gorham of Massachusetts. They were all able and promising men, having already attained high distinction in their respective States.

26“Among those who had served in former Congresses, Mr. William Lowndes of South Carolina was the foremost in ability and influence. Next to him stood Mr. Sergeant of Pennsylvania, Mr. McLane of Delaware, Mr. Philip P. Barbour of Virginia, Mr. Baldwin of Pennsylvania, Mr. Tracy of New York, and John Randolph of Roanoke. Neither Mr. Clay nor Mr. Webster was a member of Congress at this period. Mr. Lowndes did not take his seat until December 21st, nearly three weeks after the beginning of the session. In the meantime, the new members of the House awaited his arrival in Washington with much interest. He, with Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Cheves, had constituted what was termed the ‘Galaxy’ of young men whom South Carolina sent to the House to sustain the war of 1812 with Great Britain, and he ranked the first among them.

“Mr. Lowndes had been unanimously nominated in December, 1821, by the Legislature of South Carolina, as a candidate for the Presidency to succeed Mr. Monroe. To this he made no direct response. In a letter to a friend in Charleston, after stating that he had not taken and never would take a step to draw the public eye upon him for this high place, he uttered the memorable sentiment: ‘The Presidency of the United States is not, in my opinion, an office to be either solicited or declined.’ And such was the general conviction of his candor and sincerity that no man doubted this to be the genuine sentiment of his heart. Fortunate would it have been for the country had all future aspirants for this exalted station acted in accordance with this noble sentiment. At the time, as Mr. Benton truly observes, ‘he was strongly indicated for an early elevation to the Presidency—indicated by the public will and judgment, and not by any machinery of individual or party management, from the approach of which he shrank as from the touch of contamination.’^[8]

“When Mr. Lowndes took his seat in the House, it was apparent to all that his frail and diseased frame betokened an early death, though he was then only in the forty-first year of his age. He was considerably above six feet in height, and was much stooped in person. There was nothing striking in his countenance to indicate great and varied intellectual powers. As a speaker he was persuasive and convincing. Though earnest and decided in the discussion of great questions, he never uttered a word which could give personal offence to his opponents or leave a sting behind. His eloquence partook of his own gentle and unpretending nature. His voice had become feeble and husky, and when he rose to speak, the members of the House, without distinction of party, clustered around him so that they might hear every word which fell from his lips. Towards his antagonists he was the fairest debater ever known in Congress. It was his custom to state their arguments so strongly and clearly that John Randolph, on one occasion, exclaimed: ‘He will never be able to answer himself.’ He possessed all the varied information necessary to the character of a great American statesman; 27and this, not merely in regard to general principles, but to minute practical details.

“On one occasion it became his duty, as Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, in the House, to present a history of the origin, progress and character of our trade with the East Indies. This he did with such fulness and precision that Mr. Silsbee, a well-informed and much-respected member of the House, and afterwards a Senator from Massachusetts, declared in his place, that although he had been engaged in that trade for many years, the gentleman from South Carolina had communicated to the House important information and shed new light on the subject which had never been known to him. On another occasion, two young members made a wager that Mr. Lowndes could not promptly state the process of manufacturing a common pin. On propounding the question to him, he at once stated the whole process in minute detail.

“Mr. Lowndes’ great influence,—for he was the undisputed leader in the House—arose in no small degree from the conviction of its members that he never had a sinister or selfish purpose in view, but always uttered the genuine sentiments of his heart. Mr. Lowndes had not the least jealousy in his nature. In his social intercourse with his fellow-members he was ever ready and willing to impart his stores of information on any subject, without feeling the least apprehension that these might be used to anticipate what he himself intended to say, or in debate against himself. His health continuing to decline, he resigned his seat in the House, and by the advice of his physicians, embarked in October, 1822, from Philadelphia in the ship Moss, with his wife and daughter, for London. He died on the passage, on the 27th of that month, and was buried at sea.

“His death was announced in the House of Representatives on the 21st of January, 1823, by Mr. James Hamilton, his successor. This was the first occasion on which such honors had been paid to the memory of any one not a member of the House at the time of his decease. Among the eulogies pronounced was one by John W. Taylor, of New York, who had been the Speaker of the House during the session immediately preceding. He had been an active and able opponent of Mr. Lowndes throughout the debates and proceedings on the Missouri question, which had for two years convulsed the House and the country, until its settlement at the close of the last session. Coming from a political antagonist, it so graphically presents the true character of Mr. Lowndes, that I am tempted to copy a portion of it. After referring to his death, as ‘the greatest misfortune which had befallen the Union’ since he had held a seat in its councils, he proceeds: ‘The highest and best hopes of this country looked to William Lowndes for their fulfillment. The most honorable office in the civilized world—the Chief Magistracy of this free people—would have been illustrated by his virtues and talents. During nine years’ service in this House, it was my happiness to be associated with him on many of its most important committees. He never failed to shed new light on all subjects to which he applied his vigorous and discriminating mind. 28His industry in discharging the arduous and responsible duties constantly assigned him, was persevering and efficient. To manners the most unassuming, to patriotism the most disinterested, to morals the most pure, to attainments of the first rank in literature and science, he added the virtues of decision and prudence, so happily combined, so harmoniously united, that we knew not which most to admire, the firmness with which he pursued his purpose or the gentleness with which he disarmed opposition. His arguments were made not to enjoy the triumph of victory, but to convince the judgment of his hearers; and when the success of his efforts was most signal, his humility was most conspicuous. You, Mr. Speaker, will remember his zeal in sustaining the cause of our country in the darkest days of the late war.’

“The whole House, with one accord, responded to the truthfulness of these sentiments so happily expressed by Mr. Taylor. And yet, strange to say, the published debates of Congress contain but a meagre and imperfect sketch, and offer no report at all of the speeches of this great and good man. His fame as a parliamentary speaker, like that of the great commoner, Charles James Fox, must mainly rest upon tradition now fast fading away. The editors of the National Intelligencer truly remark that, ‘of all the distinguished men who have passed periods of their lives in either House of Congress, there is certainly no one of anything like equal ability who has left fewer traces on the page of history or on the records of Congress than William Lowndes, the eminent Representative in Congress for several years of the State of South Carolina.’ The reason which they assign why so few of his eloquent speeches are to be found on record is attributable, in part, to his unfeigned diffidence, which placed less than their true value upon his own exertions, and in part to an objection which he had, on principle, to the practice of writing out speeches for publication, either before or after the delivery. Little or no reliance could be placed on the reporters of that day. The art even of shorthand writing was almost unknown in this country, and the published sketches prepared by the so-called reporters, were calculated to injure rather than to elevate the character of the speaker.

“How much has been lost to the country by the scruples of Mr. Lowndes may be imagined from the ‘little gem’ of a speech written out by him at the personal request of Mr. Silsbee, then a member of the House, on the bill for the relief of the family of Commodore Perry, but never published until more than twenty years after his death. It does not appear in the annals of 1821 that he made any speech on this occasion. It may be added, to show the incapacity of the reporters of that day, that there is no other mention of his speech against the bankrupt bill, commenced on February 21st, and concluded on March 5th, 1822, though listened to with rapt attention by the House, except that he did speak on these two days. From physical exhaustion he was unable to say all he had intended on this important subject. His name does not even appear in the index as a speaker on this bill.

“I have written much more than I should otherwise have done, to repair 29injustice done to the character of the ablest, purest, and most unselfish statesman of his day.”^[9]

Of John Randolph and John Sergeant, Mr. Buchanan thus records his recollections:

John Randolph of Roanoke was the most conspicuous, though far from the most influential member of the House, when I first took my seat. He entered the House in 1799, and had continued there, with the exception of two terms, from that early period. His style of debate was in perfect contrast to that of Mr. Lowndes. He was severe and sarcastic, sparing neither friend nor foe, when the one or the other laid himself open to the shafts of his ridicule. He was a fine belles-lettres scholar, and his classical allusions were abundant and happy. He had a shrill and penetrating voice, and could be heard distinctly in every portion of the House. He spoke with great deliberation, and often paused for an instant as if to select the most appropriate word. His manner was confident, proud, and imposing, and pointing, as he always did, his long forefinger at the object of attack, he gave peculiar emphasis to the severity of his language. He attracted a crowded gallery when it was known he would address the House, and always commanded the undivided attention of his whole audience, whether he spoke the words of wisdom, or, as he often did, of folly. For these reasons he was more feared than beloved, and his influence in the House bore no proportion to the brilliancy of his talents. He was powerful in pulling down an administration, but had no skill in building anything up. Hence he was almost always in the opposition, but was never what is called a business member. To me he was uniformly respectful, and sometimes complimentary in debate. I well remember Mr. Sergeant putting me on my guard against Mr. Randolph’s friendship.”

“Mr. Sergeant entered the House in December, 1815, and had continued to be a member since that day. As a lawyer, he stood in the front rank among the eminent members of the bar of Philadelphia, at a period when its members were greatly distinguished throughout the country for ability and learning. His personal character was above reproach. From his first appearance he maintained a high rank in the estimation of the House. As a debater, he was clear and logical, and never failed to impart information. His fault was that of almost every member of Congress who had become a 30member after a long and successful training at the bar. He was too exhaustive in his arguments, touching every point in the question before the House without discriminating between those which were vital and those which were subordinate. His manner was cold and didactic, and his prolixity sometimes fatigued the House. In his social intercourse with the members, he was cold but not repulsive. The high estimation in which he was held, arose from the just appreciation of his great abilities, and of his pure and spotless private character. There was nothing ad captandum about him. He was regarded by his constituents in Philadelphia with pride and affection, who generally spoke of him as ‘our John Sergeant.’”

The first debate in which Mr. Buchanan took part related to a bill, introduced by General Smith of Maryland, making appropriations for the Military Establishment. This discussion, which took place on the 9th and 11th of January, 1822, was an excited one, from the inner motive of the opposition to the bill, which was aimed at the supposed aspirations of Mr. Calhoun, the Secretary of War. In reference to the Secretary Mr. Buchanan said: “I have no feeling of partiality for the Secretary of War, nor of prejudice against him. I view him merely as a public character, and, in that capacity, I conscientiously believe that he has done his duty.” After a sharp reply from Mr. Randolph, the bill was passed by a very large majority, the members of the so-called “Radical” party alone voting against it. There very soon occurred another debate which is of greater importance, since it marks the direction which Mr. Buchanan’s mind was beginning to take on the subject of Federal powers and State Rights. This was the occasion of the introduction of a Bankrupt bill.

Prior to this time, Congress had but once exercised the constitutional power “to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States.” This was in the Bankrupt law of 1800, which was repealed in 1804. Of the power of Congress to legislate on the subject of “bankruptcy” there can of course be no doubt, since it is expressly conferred. But there has always been a doubt respecting the true construction of the terms “bankruptcy” and “bankrupt.” Following the English system, the Act of 1800 rejected the idea that these terms include all “insolvents,” of all occupations, and confined the meaning to “traders,” or mercantile insolvents. Here, 31therefore, was one very serious question in interpretation to be encountered; for although the measure, of which some account is now to be given, contemplated, as it was first introduced, none but commercial insolvents, it finally turned upon an amendment which would have made it applicable to all classes of insolvent debtors. In either aspect, too, it brought into view the contrasted functions of the Federal and the State courts, in the enforcement and collection of private debts.

The close of the war, in 1815, was followed by extensive financial embarrassment among the commercial classes. The merchants of Philadelphia suffered severely during the five years which succeeded the peace, and it was by one of their Representatives, Mr. John Sergeant, that a bankrupt bill, retrospective as well as prospective in its operation, was introduced in the House, on the 11th of December, 1821. On the 22d of January, 1822, the debate was opened by Mr. Sergeant, as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. His speech was exceedingly able, and even pathetic, for he spoke for a large class of ruined men. The discussion continued until the 12th of March, Mr. Sergeant standing almost alone in advocacy of the bill, in opposition to George Tucker and Philip P. Barbour of Virginia, and to Mr. Lowndes of South Carolina. The latter, although opposed to the bill, did not accord with the strict constructionists of Virginia. Thus far, the proposed measure included only commercial insolvents. But on the 12th of March, a member from Kentucky offered an amendment that included all insolvent debtors, which was adopted. This, of course, changed the aspect of the whole subject, and whether so intended or not, finally defeated the bill. Mr. Buchanan spoke in opposition to the bill on the day the amendment was adopted. He did not question the power of Congress to pass a bankrupt law. Nor did he contend that the “bankruptcy” referred to in the Constitution, necessarily included only commercial insolvents. But there is very perceptible in his speech on this occasion a tendency to that line of politics which he afterwards adopted and always adhered to, and which may be described as a forbearance from exercising Federal powers of acknowledged constitutional validity, in modes and upon occasions which may lead to an absorption of State jurisdictions. 32Thus he said: “The bill, as it stood before the amendment, went far enough. It would, even then, have brought the operation of the law and the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts into the bosom of every community. The bill as it now stands will entirely destroy the symmetry of our system, and make those courts the arbiters, in almost every case, of contracts to which any member of society who thinks proper to become a bankrupt may be a party. It will at once be, in a great degree, a judicial consolidation of the Union. This was never intended by the friends of the Constitution...... The jurisdiction of Federal Courts is now chiefly confined to controversies existing between the citizens of different States. This bill, if it should become a law, will amount to a judicial consolidation of the Union.”

Of the general tenor of this sweeping measure, Mr. Buchanan said:

“Let a bankrupt be presented to the view of society, who has become wealthy since his discharge, and who, after having ruined a number of his creditors, shields himself from the payment of his honest debts by his certificate, and what effects would such a spectacle be calculated to produce? Examples of this nature must at length demoralize any people. The contagion introduced by the laws of the country would, for that very reason, spread like a pestilence, until honesty, honor, and faith will at length be swept from the intercourse of society. Leave the agricultural interest pure and uncorrupted, and they will forever form the basis on which the Constitution and liberties of your country may safely repose. Do not, I beseech you, teach them to think lightly of the solemn obligation of contracts. No government on earth, however corrupt, has ever enacted a bankrupt law for farmers; it would be a perfect monster in this country, where our institutions depend altogether upon the virtue of the people. We have no constitutional power to pass the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Kentucky; and if we had, we never should do so, because such a provision would spread a moral taint through society which would corrupt it to its very core.”

The next important discussion in which Mr. Buchanan took part was on a bill relating to the Cumberland Road. Before he entered Congress, a national turnpike had been built by the Federal Government, extending from Cumberland in the State of Maryland to Wheeling in the State of Virginia. It crossed a narrow part of Maryland, passed through a corner of Pennsylvania, and touched but a small part of Virginia. The principal 33interest felt in this work was in the Western States. It encountered much opposition in Pennsylvania, where a turnpike road had been built, under State authority, from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, which was kept in repair by tolls, and which paid a small dividend to its stockholders. A national road, supported by the Federal Government, and taking the travel from the Pennsylvania road was considered in that State as a grievance. Moreover, whenever the question of appropriating money for the continued support of this national road, or the alternative of imposing tolls, arose in Congress, the question of constitutional power to establish such means of communication necessarily arose at every stage of the legislation. That legislation is of interest now, inasmuch as the course taken by Mr. Buchanan illustrates the development of his opinions upon the constitutional question.

Of the last appropriation for continuing the Cumberland Road, there remained a balance in the Treasury of less than $10,000. In the General Appropriation Bill of this session (1822), provision was made for the repair of the road. A member from New Jersey moved to increase the amount. On this amendment there was an animated discussion, in which Mr. Buchanan appears to have considered that this public work was so beneficial to the general prosperity of the Union, that Congress might well appropriate the money needed for its support. “The truth is,” he said, “we are all so connected together by our interests, as to place us in a state of mutual dependence upon each other, and to make that which is for the interest of any one member of the Federal family beneficial, in most instances, to all the rest. We never can be divided without first being guilty of political suicide. The prosperity of all the States depends as much upon their Union, as human life depends upon that of the soul and body.” It is quite obvious that this kind of reasoning was, however true in the general, too broad and sweeping to justify the appropriation of money from the Federal Treasury for a public work which could claim no other than an incidental and remote relation to the prosperity of all the States. Every appropriation of money by Congress must rest upon some specific power of the Federal Constitution; and although Congress has a specific power “to regulate commerce 34among the several States,” and while it may be admitted that commerce includes intercourse, it has been from the first, and still is, a serious question whether this grant of the power of commercial regulation includes a power to establish and maintain the means by which commerce is carried on, and by which intercourse may be facilitated, unless such means fall within the designation of “post-roads,” and are established, primarily at least, for the transmission of mails. The appropriation proposed for the continued support of the Cumberland Road failed, and then came the question, in a separate bill, of imposing tolls for the support of the road. Mr. Buchanan voted for this bill, as did most of his colleagues from Pennsylvania, and it passed both Houses. But on the 4th of May (1822), the President, Mr. Monroe, returned the bill with a very long message, stating his objections to it. From this voluminous message, we may extract, although with some difficulty, two positions; first, that in Mr. Monroe’s opinion, Congress had no power to raise money by erecting toll-gates and collecting tolls, and that the States cannot individually grant such a power to Congress by their votes in Congress, or by any special compact with the United States; secondly, that Congress having an unlimited power to raise money by taxation general and uniform throughout the United States, its absolute discretion in the appropriation of the money so raised is restricted only by the duty of appropriating to the purposes of the common defence, and of general, not local, benefit. The first of these positions will be conceded by every one. The second admits of some doubt. Its soundness depends upon the true interpretation of the first of the enumerated powers of the Federal Constitution, that which contains the grant of the taxing power.^[10] This is not the place to enter upon the discussion of controverted questions of constitutional interpretation. But all students of the Federal Constitution are aware that the grammatical construction of the clause to which Mr. Monroe referred, admits of, and has been claimed to admit of, two interpretations. Read by itself, and without reference to the other enumerated powers, this clause has been supposed by 35some persons to grant an unlimited power to tax for any purpose that in the judgment of Congress will promote the general welfare of the United States, provided only that the taxation is uniform. On the other hand, it has been contended that the clause is not a broad, independent, and specific power to tax for any object that will promote the general welfare of the United States, but that it is limited to the promotion of the general welfare through the exercise of some one or more of the other enumerated powers of the Constitution, each of which must receive its own scope from a just interpretation before the people of the United States can be taxed for the means of exercising that power. Viewed in the latter sense, the clause contains a grant of the power of taxation, general and universal in its nature, but limited as to its objects by the objects of each of the other enumerated powers. Viewed in the former sense, it becomes a separate and independent power to tax for any object that will promote the general welfare, without reference to the exercise of any of the specific powers of the Constitution which form the objects for which the Federal Government was created.

Mr. Monroe’s veto message on this occasion was sustained in the House by a vote of 68 to 72, and the bill consequently failed. The vote of the House, however, is to be considered as a concurrence in Mr. Monroe’s objection that Congress cannot establish toll-gates and collect tolls, and not as an affirmance of the general views which he expressed on the taxing power. But upon Mr. Buchanan this message produced a strong effect. It was the first time that his mind had been brought sharply to the consideration of the questions in what mode “Internal Improvements,” as they were called, can be effected by the General Government, and consequently he began to perceive the dividing line between the Federal and the State powers. Although he had voted for the bill imposing tolls upon the Cumberland Road, influenced probably by the desire to diminish its injurious competition with the Pennsylvania road, he took occasion at the next session to retract the error of which he had been convinced by Mr. Monroe’s message. When a bill was introduced at the next session, making an appropriation for the preservation and repair of the Cumberland Road, he moved 36as an amendment that the United States retrocede the road to the three States through which it passed, on condition that they would keep it in repair and collect no more tolls than such as would be necessary for that purpose. Being now convinced that Congress could not impose the tolls, he thought the only alternative was to cede the road to the States, since it could not be supported from the Federal Treasury without producing inequality and injustice. His amendment was rejected and the bill was passed.^[11] A precedent was thus established for the support of the road by Congress. The subject will again recur in 1829 and 1836. In Mr. Buchanan’s speech in 1829 will be found the expression of his more matured constitutional views on the whole subject of Internal Improvements.^[12]

The 17th Congress, which commenced its session in December, 1822, and terminated in March, 1823, witnessed a protracted discussion on the doctrine of “protection,” which extended into the 18th Congress. The tariff of 1823–4 was the second measure of that kind after the war. At that period the prevalent doctrine in the New England States was Anti-protectionist. The city of Boston was represented by Mr. Benjamin Gorham, a lawyer of remarkable ability, the immediate predecessor of Mr. Webster. His speech against the new tariff was replied to by Mr. Buchanan; and if the reply is a fair indication of the speech against which it was directed, Mr. Gorham’s language must have been vehement.^[13] Mr. Buchanan said:

“The gentleman from Massachusetts has declared this bill to be an attempt, by one portion of the Union for its own peculiar advantage, to impose ruinous taxes on another. He has represented it as an effort to compel the agriculturists of the South to pay tribute to the manufacturers of the North; he has proclaimed it to be a tyrannical measure. He has gone further, and boldly declared that the people of the South should resist such a law, and that they ought to resist it. The gentlemen from Massachusetts and Georgia (Mr. Tattnall) have proclaimed it tyranny, and tyranny which ought to be resisted. I confess I never expected to hear inflammatory speeches of this kind within these walls which ought to be sacred to union; I never expected to hear the East counselling the South to resistance, that we might thus be deterred from prosecuting a measure of policy, urged upon us by the necessities of the country. It was by a combination between the cotton-growers of the 37South and the manufacturers of the North, that the introduction of coarse cottons from abroad has been in effect prohibited by the high rates of duties. It is ungenerous, then, for the South and the East to sound the tocsin of alarm and resistance when we wish indirectly to benefit the agriculturists and manufacturers of the Middle and Western States by the imposition of necessary duties. If I know myself, I am a politician neither of the East nor of the West, of the North nor of the South; I, therefore, shall forever avoid any expressions, the direct tendency of which must be to create sectional jealousies, sectional divisions, and, at length, disunion—that worst and last of all political calamities. I will never consent to adopt a general restrictive system, because the agricultural class of the community would then be left at the mercy of the manufacturers. The interest of the many would thus be sacrificed to promote the wealth of the few. The farmer, in addition to the premium which he would be compelled to pay the manufacturer, would have also to sustain the expenses of the Government. If this bill proposed a system which leads to such abuses, it should not receive my support. If I could, for a single moment, believe in the language of the gentleman from Georgia—that this bill would compel the agricultural to bow down before the manufacturing interest—I should consider myself a traitor to my country in giving it any support.”

In the subsequent Congress, Mr. Buchanan spoke twice on the subject of the tariff, namely, March 23d and April 9th, 1824. But the foregoing extract from his speech in February, 1823, is sufficient to show how moderate and just his views were on the subject of protection.

When Mr. Buchanan entered Congress in December, 1821, his professional income was the largest that he ever received. He had then been eight years at the bar, and his emoluments from his profession, which were less than $1,000 for the first year, had become more than $11,000 for the year 1821–2. They then fell off somewhat rapidly, and in the year 1828 they amounted to only a little more than $2,000.

ELECTION OF JOHN QUINCY ADAMS—THE “BARGAIN AND CORRUPTION”—UNFOUNDED CHARGE—GENERAL JACKSON’S ERRONEOUS IMPRESSION—HIS CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. BUCHANAN.

I now approach one of those periods of intense political excitement which it becomes every one who has to write of them to treat in an entirely impartial and judicial spirit. The subject of this chapter is the Presidential election of 1824,^[14] and Mr. Buchanan’s connection with it. The famous “coalition” between Mr. John Quincy Adams and Mr. Clay, is a topic that involves so much that is personal, that one must needs divest one’s self of all preconceived opinions, and must regard the whole matter with that indifference which the present age already feels, and which is solicitous only to do no injustice to individual reputations. At the same time, the whole case should be plainly stated; for it touches a provision of the Constitution, by which its framers supplied a means for filling the office of President, in the event of there being no choice through the electoral colleges.

In the year 1824, there were 261 electoral votes in the Union, a majority being 131. The candidates at the popular election were General Jackson, Mr. John Quincy Adams, Mr. Crawford, and Mr. Clay. Neither of them was the candidate of a distinctively organized political party. General Jackson was a member of the Senate, from the State of Tennessee. Mr. Adams was Secretary of State, under President Monroe. Mr. Crawford, who had formerly been a Senator from Georgia, was not in any public position. Mr. Clay was a Representative 39from Kentucky, and was chosen Speaker of the House at the beginning of the session. Neither of these candidates having received a majority of the electoral votes, the election of a President devolved on the House of Representatives, in which body each State would have one vote. But as the Constitution required that the choice of the House be confined to the three highest candidates on the list of those voted for by the electors, and as Mr. Clay was not one of the three, he was excluded. He and his friends, however, had it in their power to make either General Jackson or Mr. Adams President; and Mr. Clay at all times had great control over his friends. How he would cast his vote, and how he would lead his followers who were members of the House to cast theirs, became therefore an intensely exciting subject of speculation both in Washington and throughout the country. For a short time it was supposed that Mr. Clay and the other members from Kentucky would be governed by a resolution adopted by both branches of the Legislature of that State, requesting their members of Congress to vote for General Jackson. This resolution had been adopted in the Kentucky House of Representatives on the 31st of December (1824), by a majority of 73 to 11; and in the Senate of the State it was adopted by a vote of 18 to 12. It spoke what was the undoubted wish of the people of Kentucky, whose first choice for the office of President was Mr. Clay himself, but whose preference for General Jackson to Mr. Adams was explicitly declared by their Legislature.^[15] General Jackson had received the unanimous electoral votes of eight States: New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Mississippi, Indiana, and Alabama. Mr. Adams had received the unanimous electoral votes of the six New England States. If the Representatives of these various States in Congress should vote as their States had voted, it would require but five additional States to elect General Jackson, while seven would be needed to elect Mr. Adams. Of the remaining States which had not unanimously given their electoral votes to General Jackson or to Mr. Adams, it appears that General Jackson 40received one of the electoral votes of New York, Mr. Adams received twenty-six, and Mr. Crawford five. Delaware had given one of its electoral votes to Mr. Adams and two to Mr. Crawford. General Jackson had seven of the electoral votes of Maryland, Mr. Adams three, and Mr. Crawford one. Virginia had given all of her electoral votes, twenty-four, to Mr. Crawford. Louisiana had given three of her electoral votes to General Jackson, and two to Mr. Adams. The electoral votes of Illinois had gone two for General Jackson, and one for Mr. Adams. Which of these doubtful States would be won in the great contest for General Jackson, and which for Mr. Adams, was now the all-absorbing topic, and the result depended very much upon the course of Mr. Clay.

Among the scandals which hung around this election, it was afterward said that Mr. Buchanan, while the matter was pending before the House of Representatives in the winter of 1824–5, had, as an agent or friend of Mr. Clay, approached General Jackson and sought to secure his promise to make Mr. Clay Secretary of State, in consideration of his receiving Mr. Clay’s vote and influence in the House. There was not much intrinsic probability in this imputation, for the relations between Mr. Clay and Mr. Buchanan were not such as would naturally have led to the selection of the latter as Mr. Clay’s agent in such a negotiation, even if Mr. Clay had been capable of making such an attempt to obtain from General Jackson a promise to make him Secretary of State, while the election of a President was pending in the House. But inasmuch as General Jackson, nearly twenty years afterward, was quoted in support of this statement, it is proper that I should lay before the reader Mr. Buchanan’s own explicit account of what actually took place. It will be seen hereafter that General Jackson, who always believed that there had been a corrupt political bargain between Mr. Clay and Mr. Adams, was led afterwards to think that Mr. Buchanan had at the time of the election entertained the same belief, and yet that Mr. Buchanan had refrained from denouncing the bargain as he should have done, because he had himself made the same kind of attempt for Mr. Clay, in the conversation which he had with General Jackson before the election took place. Mr. Buchanan’s own account of his interview 41with General Jackson shows very clearly that, instead of seeking an interview with General Jackson for the purpose of proposing to him to make a bargain with Mr. Clay about the office of Secretary of State, his sole object was to obtain from General Jackson a denial of a prevailing rumor that he had said he would continue Mr. Adams in that office, if elected President.

At the time of this occurrence, Mr. Buchanan was a comparatively young member of Congress, in the beginning of his fourth session. Speaking of himself in the third person, he says in a memorandum now before me, “He [Buchanan] had never personally known either General Jackson or Mr. Clay until about the opening of this Congress, when the one took his seat as a Senator from Tennessee, and the other was elected Speaker of the House. Having great confidence in the sound political principles and exalted character of General Jackson, and greatly preferring him to any of the other candidates, he [Buchanan] had taken a very active part before the people of Pennsylvania in securing for him their electoral vote. Still, he was at the same time a warm admirer of Mr. Clay.”

The prevalent rumor that General Jackson had said he would continue Mr. Adams in the office of Secretary of State, in case of his election to the Presidency, was supposed to derive some color of probability from their known friendly relations, and from the defence which Mr. Adams had made of the General’s conduct in the Seminole war. It was a rumor that greatly disturbed General Jackson’s friends and supporters in Pennsylvania. They regarded Mr. Adams’ constitutional views as much too latitudinarian for the leading position in General Jackson’s cabinet; and they feared that the General’s announcement of such a purpose would stand in the way of his election by the House of Representatives. Mr. Buchanan fully shared this anxiety of his Pennsylvania constituents and political friends; and with the approbation and advice of a leading gentleman among this class of General Jackson’s supporters, Mr. Buchanan determined to ascertain from the General himself whether there was any foundation for the rumor.^[16] He first 42endeavored to obtain the information from Major Eaton, the colleague of General Jackson in the Senate, and his most intimate friend. Major Eaton declined to make the inquiry. Mr. Buchanan then determined to make it himself. What follows is from Mr. Buchanan’s own account of the interview, which lies before me in his handwriting:

Calling at the General’s lodgings in “the Seven Buildings,” Mr. Buchanan accompanied him, on his own invitation, in a walk as far as the War Department, where the General had to call on public business. After a suitable introduction and reference to the rumor afloat, Mr. Buchanan requested him to state whether he had ever declared that in case he should be elected President he would appoint Mr. Adams Secretary of State. To this he replied by saying that whilst he thought well of Mr. Adams, he had never said or intimated that he would or would not make this appointment. With this answer, Mr. Buchanan was entirely satisfied, and so expressed himself. The object of his mission was thus accomplished. The General’s answer was positive and emphatic. It made a deep and lasting impression on his only auditor, who requested permission to repeat it, and he gave it without reserve.

This, however, was not the whole of the conversation; and in order to explain how this conversation became afterwards distorted into the appearance of an application by Mr. Buchanan to General Jackson on behalf of Mr. Clay, it is necessary to advert to something which took place between Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Philip S. Markley, another Representative from the State of Pennsylvania, before Mr. Buchanan spoke to General Jackson. Mr. Markley had been a devoted advocate of Mr. Clay for the Presidency. He urged Mr. Buchanan to see General Jackson, and to persuade him either to say that Mr. Clay should be Secretary of State, or to remain absolutely silent as between Mr. Clay and Mr. Adams; “for then,” as he remarked, “the friends of Mr. Clay would be placed upon the same footing with the friends of Mr. Adams, and fight them with their own weapons.” If Mr. Buchanan had made any proposition to General Jackson respecting Mr. Clay, there might have been some foundation for the subsequent charge that Mr. Buchanan approached the General as an emissary of Mr. Clay. But, in point of fact, Mr. Buchanan did nothing of the kind. After the General had given him the assurance that he had 43never said he would or would not appoint Mr. Adams Secretary of State, and before they parted, Mr. Buchanan mentioned, as an item of current news, what he had heard Mr. Markley say. It does not appear to have produced upon General Jackson, at the time, any impression that Mr. Buchanan wished him to hold out any encouragement to the friends of Mr. Clay that in the event of his election he would make Mr. Clay Secretary of State. On the contrary, from what General Jackson said in answer to Mr. Buchanan’s sole inquiry, it is apparent that Mr. Buchanan obtained the only answer that he sought to obtain, namely, that the General had not said that he would or would not appoint Mr. Adams as his Secretary of State. Mr. Buchanan continues his account of the interview as follows:

“When I parted from the General, I felt conscious that I had done my duty, and no more than my duty, towards him and my party, as one of his most ardent and consistent political friends. Indeed the idea did not enter my imagination at the time that the General could have afterwards inferred from any thing I said, that I had approached him as the emissary of Mr. Clay, to propose to elect him President, provided that he (the General) would agree to appoint him Secretary of State. It is but justice to observe that the General stated, in his subsequent publication, that I did not represent myself to be the friend and agent of Mr. Clay. Surely, if Mr. Clay had desired or intended to have made such a bargain, he would have selected as his agent an old political and personal friend. Events passed on,” Mr. Buchanan continues; “then came the letter of Mr. George Kremer to the Columbian Observer, of the 25th of January, 1825, charging the existence of a corrupt bargain between Messrs. Adams and Clay; his avowal of its authorship, the appeal of Mr. Clay to the House of Representatives against the charges it contained, the report of the Committee on the subject, and, on the same day, the election of Mr. Adams as President of the United States by the House of Representatives; Mr. Adams receiving the vote of thirteen States, including that of Kentucky, General Jackson of seven States, and Mr. Crawford of four States. During all the debates and proceedings of the House, on Mr. Clay’s appeal against the charges of Mr. Kremer, it was never intimated to me, in the most distant manner, by any human being, that I was expected to be a witness to sustain this charge, or had any connection with the subject more than any other member of the House.

“The conduct of General Jackson, after his defeat, was admirable. He bore it with so much dignity and magnanimity, and perfect self-control, as to elicit strong commendations, even from his political opponents. At President Monroe’s levee, on the evening of the election, where he and Mr. Adams were both present, it was repeatedly remarked, from the courtesy and kindness 44of his manner and conversation, contrasted with the coldness and reserve of Mr. Adams, that a stranger might have inferred he had been the successful and Mr. Adams the defeated candidate.”

The election of Mr. Adams by the House of Representatives was followed after the adjournment of Congress by a correspondence between Mr. Buchanan and General Jackson, commencing in the spring of 1825 and extending to August, 1827. This correspondence shows, first, the terms on which General Jackson and Mr. Buchanan parted in Washington in the spring of 1825; and in the next place it fixes the time and mode in which the idea was first presented to the mind of General Jackson that Mr. Buchanan came to him in December, 1824, as a friend of Mr. Clay. The reader will observe that, while the election of Mr. Adams was a recent event, while the country was ringing with the charge of a “corrupt coalition” between Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay, and down to the 29th of January, 1827, during the whole of which period General Jackson’s mind was peculiarly excited by what he may have believed concerning the means by which his rival had become President, there is no trace in this correspondence of any feeling on his part that Mr. Buchanan had ever been in any way connected with the supposed bargain, or with any effort to make a similar bargain between General Jackson and Mr. Clay, or that Mr. Buchanan knew of any important fact that would tend to support the charge of a bargain between Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay. It was not until the summer of 1827, nearly three years after the conversation between General Jackson and Mr. Buchanan, that the General appears to have had an erroneous impression of Mr. Buchanan’s purpose in seeking that interview.

My Dear General:—

I write this letter from Mercersburg, being now on a visit to my mother and the family. I have no news of any importance to communicate, but both inclination and duty conspire to induce me to trouble you occasionally with a few lines, whilst you must be gratefully remembered by every American citizen who feels an interest in the character of his country’s glory.

45You have imposed additional obligations upon me by the uniform kindness and courtesy with which you have honored me.

In Pennsylvania, amongst a vast majority of the people, there is but one sentiment concerning the late Presidential election. Although they submit patiently, as is their duty, to the legally constituted powers, yet there is a fixed and determined resolution to change them as soon as they have the constitutional power to do so. In my opinion, your popularity in Pennsylvania is now more firmly established than ever. Many persons who heretofore supported you did it cheerfully from a sense of gratitude, and because they thought it would be disgraceful to the people not to elevate that candidate to the Presidential Chair, who had been so great a benefactor of the country. The slanders which had been so industriously circulated against your character had, nevertheless, in some degree affected their minds, although they never doubted either your ability or patriotism, yet they expressed fears concerning your temper. These have been all dissipated by the mild prudence and dignity of your conduct last winter, before and after the Presidential election. The majority is so immense in your favor that there is little or no newspaper discussion on the subject. I most sincerely and fervently trust and hope that the Almighty will preserve your health until the period shall again arrive when the sovereign people shall have the power of electing a President.

There never was a weaker attempt made than that to conciliate the good opinion of Pennsylvania in favor of the administration by the appointment of Mr. Rush, although no appointment could have produced the effect desired; yet, if the President had selected Mr. Sergeant, he would have chosen a man who had been his early and consistent friend, and one whose character for talents and integrity stands high with all parties in this State. Mr. Rush was a candidate for the office of elector on the Crawford ticket. I verily believe his appointment will not procure for the administration, out of the city of Philadelphia, twenty new friends throughout the State. In that city their additional strength is limited to John Binns and a few of his devoted followers.

I hope Mrs. Jackson, ere this, has been restored to her accustomed health. When I left her, I felt some apprehensions in relation to the issue of her disease. Please to present to her my kindest and best respects, and believe me to be ever your sincere friend,

Dear Sir:—

I have the pleasure to acknowledge the receipt of your kind letter of the 29th ult., which has just reached me.

That respect which I formed for your character on our first acquaintance increased with our friendly intercourse, and to you was only extended what I viewed a debt due to your merit as a gentleman of intelligence and urbanity. 46It is, therefore, a source of much gratification to me to receive a letter from you, detailing the friendly feelings of the citizens of Pennsylvania toward me.

It is gratifying to hear, through you, that the confidence and support which the majority of the citizens of Pennsylvania expressed for me, by their vote on the Presidential question, will not be withdrawn by the artful and insidious efforts of my enemies. This is another evidence of the firmness and indulgence of the freemen of Pennsylvania. This organized plan of calumny and slander, levelled against me by the unprincipled and wicked, will not owe its defeat to any effort of mine, unless it be that which always attends truth and a conscious rectitude of conduct, when submitted to an untrammelled and honest public. The continued good opinion, therefore, of my fellow-citizens of Pennsylvania, lays me under additional obligations, whilst it connects my name with another guaranty of the wisdom of our government—I mean in furnishing to posterity another example of the weakness of demagogues when endeavoring to advance to power upon the destruction of innocence.

It is much to the honor of the good citizens of Pennsylvania that they calmly submit to the legally constituted power; this all good citizens will do, who love a government of laws, although they show much disapprobation at the means by which that power was obtained, and are determined to oppose the men who obtained power by what they believe illicit means. The great constitutional corrective in the hands of the people against usurpation of power, or corruption by their agents, is the right of suffrage; and this, when used with calmness and deliberation, will prove strong enough. It will perpetuate their liberties and rights, and will compel their representatives to discharge their duties with an eye single to the public interest, for whose security and advancement government is constituted.

I have not yet been so fortunate as to fall in with Mr. Frazer, although I have made inquiry for him. Should I meet with him, be assured it will be a gratification to me to extend to him those attentions due to any of your friends.

I regret very much that the bad health of Mrs. J. prevented me from passing through your hospitable town. I assure you, could we have done so, it would have afforded Mrs. J. and myself much pleasure. Mrs. J.’s health is perfectly restored. So soon as I got her to breathe the mountain air of Pennsylvania, she mended by the hour.

We are also blessed, in this section of the country, with the promise of fine crops. Our cotton promises a good crop. This is six days earlier than ever known in this section of country.

Mrs. J. joins me in kind salutations to you, with our best wishes for your happiness.

Dear Sir:—

I received, by due course of mail, your friendly letter of the 8th ult., transmitting a resolution passed by the Convention at Harrisburg, in which it is declared “that their confidence in me is unimpaired.” This resolution adds another to the many obligations which I owe to the Republicans of Pennsylvania, and which shall be cherished as long as the feelings of gratitude and the sentiments of patriotism have a place in my heart. What greater consolation could be offered to my declining years than the reflection that my public conduct, notwithstanding the difficulties through which it has led me, can still be honored with testimonials so distinguished as this from the enlightened and patriotic Pennsylvanians; I desire no greater.

I have noted your remarks relative to Mr. Molton C. Rogers—every information I have received concerning him corroborates your account of him, and I have no doubt he fully merits the high character he sustains.

We have received the result of the Panama question in the Senate. From the whole view of the subject I have been compelled to believe that it is a hasty, unadvised measure, calculated to involve us in difficulties, perhaps war, without receiving in return any real benefit. The maxim that it is easier to avoid difficulties than to remove them when they have reached us, is too old not to be true; but perhaps this and many other good sayings, are becoming inapplicable in the present stage of our public measures, which seem to be so far removed from our (illegible) that even the language of Washington must be transposed in order to be reconciled to the councils of wisdom. I hope I may be wrong—it is my sincere wish that this Panama movement may advance the happiness and glory of the country—but if it be not a commitment of our neutrality with Spain, and indirectly with other powers, as, for example, Brazil, I have misconstrued very much the signification of the anathemas which have been pronounced upon the Assembly at Verona, as well as the true sense of the principles which form international law. Let the primary interests of Europe be what they may, or let our situation vary as far as you please from that which we occupied when the immortal Washington retired from the councils of his country, I cannot see, for my part, how it follows that the primary interests of the United States will be safer in the hands of others than in her own; or, in other words, that it can ever become necessary to form treaties, alliances, or any connections with the governments of South America, which may infringe upon the principles of equality among nations which is the basis of their independence, as well as all their international rights. The doctrine of Washington is as applicable to the present, as to the then primary interests of Europe, so far as our own peace and happiness are concerned, and I have no hesitation in saying, so far as the true interests of South America are concerned—maugre the discovery of Mr. Adams, that if Washington was now with us, 48he would unite with him in sending this mission to Panama. No one feels more for the cause of the South Americans than I do, and if the proper time had arrived, I trust that none would more willingly march to their defence. But there is a wide difference between relieving them from a combination of league powers, and aiding them in forming a confederation which can do no good, as far as I am apprised of its objects, and which we all know, let its objects be the best, will contain evil tendencies.

Mr Dear Sir:—

I was very much gratified on the receipt of your letter of the 21st ult., which reached me yesterday, and thank you for the information it contains. I want language to express the gratitude I feel for the unsolicited, but generous support of the great Republican State of Pennsylvania—did I lack a stimulus to exert all my faculties to promote the best interests of my country, this alone would be sufficient. Who could abandon the path of Republican virtue when thus supported by the voluntary approbation of the enlightened and virtuous citizens of such a State as Pennsylvania? I answer, none whose minds have been matured in the schools of virtue, religion and morality.

I am happy to learn that Mr. Cheves has become your neighbor and a citizen—he is a great blessing to any society—he has a well-stored mind of useful information, which he will employ to the benefit of his country and the happiness of the society to which he belongs. Please present me to him respectfully.

I regret to learn that the drought has visited your section of country, and your crops are not abundant; still, so long as we have a supply of breadstuffs and other substantials, we ought to be thankful and happy. When we contrast our situation with Ireland and England, we ought to view ourselves as the chosen people of God, who has given us such a happy government of laws and placed us in such a climate and fertile soil. We ought not only to be thankful, but we ought to cherish and foster this heavenly boon with vestal vigilance.

Mrs. J. joins me in kind salutations and respects to you.

Dear Sir:—

Your favor of the 19th has been before me for some time, but observing in the papers the obituary notice of your brother, whose illness took you from the city, I have delayed acknowledging its receipt until advised of your return. I pray you to accept my sincere condolence for the serious loss you have sustained in the death of your brother.

I suspect the Administration begins to perceive the necessity of public confidence, without which it is an arduous undertaking to execute the solemn duties confided by the Constitution to the Chief Magistrate. The Panama “bubble” and the loss of the trade with the British West Indies are the result of this defect in the Cabinet, for it cannot be supposed that such reputed diplomatists would have committed errors so obvious, had not some influence stronger than the public good operated upon their minds. My hope, however, is that the wisdom of Congress may remedy these blunders, and that my friends the “factious opposition” may, in your own language, never forget the support due to the country.

I had predicted, from the movements of (illegible) and Rochester, that the Panama subject was done with, and that the charge of “factious opposition” would be hushed, but it appears I was mistaken. —— is to be the theatre on which these mighty projects are to be unfolded. Alas! what folly and weakness!

Present me to my friend Mr. Kremer, and believe me,

In the spring of 1827, Mr. Carter Beverley, of Virginia, was on a visit to General Jackson at the “Hermitage.” The conversation turned on the incidents which preceded the election of Mr. Adams, and General Jackson gave some account of his interview with Mr. Buchanan in December, 1824, speaking of Mr. Buchanan, however, not by name, but as “a leading member of Congress.” Mr. Beverley wrote an account of this conversation to a friend in North Carolina, who published his letter. Mr. Beverley afterward wrote to General Jackson, saying that his letter was not intended for publication, but asking if its statements were correct. General Jackson, without seeing Mr. Beverley’s published letter, then wrote an answer to Mr. Beverley, which was published, and in which he stated that “a leading member of Congress” had, as the agent or 50confidential friend of Mr. Clay, proposed to him to engage to make Mr. Clay Secretary of State, and that he emphatically declined to do so. Subsequently, in another publication, General Jackson gave the name of Mr. Buchanan as the member who had thus approached him. The public was thus (in 1827) electrified by a statement, coming from General Jackson himself, that Mr. Clay, who had been charged with purchasing his appointment by Mr. Adams as Secretary of State, by his promise to make Mr. Adams President, had attempted, through Mr. Buchanan, to negotiate the same kind of corrupt bargain with General Jackson, on the like promise to make General Jackson President. It is very easy to see how this mistake first arose in the General’s mind. Recollecting the information which Mr. Buchanan had given him of the over-zealous and imprudent conversation of Mr. Markley, who was a known partisan of Mr. Clay,—information which Mr. Buchanan assigned as a reason why the General should disavow the rumor that he had promised to appoint Mr. Adams Secretary,—General Jackson had evidently come to misunderstand the object of Mr. Buchanan in mentioning what Mr. Markley had said. It must be remembered that at this time (1827) there was an angry and excited controversy going on, respecting the supposed bargain between Mr. Clay and Mr. Adams; that Mr. Clay was publishing, and that General Jackson was publishing; that General Jackson undoubtedly believed that there had been an improper understanding between Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay, and it was very natural for him to take up the idea that Mr. Buchanan, by mentioning what Mr. Markley had said, stood ready, as a friend of Mr. Clay, to propose and carry out a similar bargain with himself. Apart from Mr. Buchanan’s denial, there seems to be an intrinsic improbability that one who had been an earnest supporter of General Jackson in the popular election, and who feared that even a rumor of his intended appointment of Mr. Adams would injure the General in the House of Representatives, and who knew that it would greatly injure him in Pennsylvania, if it were not contradicted, should have exerted himself to get from the General a promise to make Mr. Clay Secretary of State. Promises, or rumors of promises, in regard to this 51appointment, were the very things which Mr. Buchanan was interested to prevent. It was very unfortunate that General Jackson did not afterwards and always see, that the mention by Mr. Buchanan of Mr. Markley’s wishes, was intended to present to his (the General’s) mind the importance of his denial of the rumor that he had said he would appoint Mr. Adams. In all that scene of intrigue—and apart from any thing said or done by the principal persons concerned in that great struggle, there was intrigue—General Jackson acted with the rigid integrity that belonged to his character. Mr. Buchanan acted with no less integrity. He wished to prevent General Jackson’s cause from being injured in the House and in the country, by unfounded rumors with which the heated atmosphere of Washington was filled; and he could have had no motive for seeking to make Mr. Clay Secretary of State, at the expense of exposing General Jackson to the same kind of rumor in regard to Mr. Clay which he was anxious to counteract in regard to Mr. Adams.

After the publication of General Jackson’s letter to Mr. Beverley, Mr. Buchanan wrote to a friend as follows:

Dear Sir:—

I received yours yesterday evening, and hasten to give it an immediate answer. With you, I regret the publication of General Jackson’s letter to Mr. Beverley. It may do harm, but cannot do good. The conversation which I held with the General will not sustain his letter, although it may furnish a sufficient reason for his apprehensions. My single purpose was to ascertain from him whether he had ever declared he would appoint Mr. Adams Secretary of State in case he were elected President. As to the propriety and policy of propounding this question to him, I had reflected much, and had taken the advice of a distinguished Jackson man, then high in office in Pennsylvania. I had no doubt at the time that my question, if answered at all, would be answered in the negative; but I wished it to come from himself that he stood uncommitted upon this subject.

In my interview with the General (which, by the way, was in the street), I stated the particulars of a conversation between Philip S. Markley and myself, as one reason why he should answer the question which I had propounded. Out of my repetition of this conversation the mistake must have arisen. This conversation would be one link in the chain of testimony, but of itself it is altogether incomplete.

52How General Jackson could have believed I came to him as an emissary from Mr. Clay or his friends to make a corrupt bargain with him in their behalf, I am at a loss to determine. He could not have received the impression until after Mr. Clay and his friends had actually elected Mr. Adams, and Adams had appointed Clay Secretary of State. Although I continued to be upon terms of the strictest intimacy with General Jackson whilst he continued at Washington, and have corresponded with him occasionally since, he has never adverted to the subject. From the terms of his letters to me, I never could have suspected that he for a moment supposed me capable of becoming the agent in such a negotiation. The idea that such was his impression never once flitted across my mind.

When regularly called upon, I need not tell you that I shall speak the truth. If the matter be properly managed, it will not injure General Jackson; but I can readily conceive that such a course may be taken in relation to it by some of our friends, as will materially injure his prospects.

At about this time, Mr. Clay publicly disclaimed all knowledge respecting the interview between Mr. Buchanan and General Jackson, and the latter then wrote to Mr. Buchanan the following explanatory letter:

Dear Sir:—

You will see from the enclosed publication of Mr. Clay repelling the statement made by me respecting the propositions said to have been made by his friends to mine and to me, and intended to operate upon the last election for President, that it becomes necessary for the public to be put in possession of the facts. In doing this you are aware of the position which you occupy, and which, I trust, you will sustain when properly called on. Ever since the publication, and the inquiry before the House of Representatives in January and February, 1825, questions have been propounded from various sources calculated to draw from me the information I had upon that unpleasant subject. Many, no doubt with sinister views, placing me in selfish connection with the facts from my accustomed silence, have sought to fortify the character of Mr. Clay. But in a number of cases, where inquiry seemed to be prompted by a frank and generous desire to obtain the truth, I felt myself bound to answer in a corresponding spirit, and accordingly the statement made by you to me has been on several occasions repeated, as it was to Mr. Beverley, who visited me at my house, where he found a number of his friends and relatives.

53Having remained all night, in the morning, conversing on politics, the question so often put to me before was asked by Mr. Beverley. It was answered. Mr. Beverley went to Nashville and wrote to his friend in North Carolina, who it appears published his letter. On the 15th of May last, he wrote me from Louisville, requesting to be informed whether the statement made by him was correct, and observing that his letter was not intended for publication. Not having seen the letter, as published, there was no safe alternative for me but that adopted, of making the statement, as you will see in the enclosed paper.

I shall now, in reply to Mr. Clay’s appeal, give my authority, accompanied by the statement you made to Major John H. Eaton and to Mr. Kremer, and leave Mr. Clay to his further inquiries. He cannot be indulged by me in a paper war, or newspaper discussion. Had his friends not voted out Mr. McDuffie’s resolutions when Mr. Clay threw himself upon the House, the truth or falsehood of these statements would have been made manifest, and the public mind now at rest upon the subject. That they did, will appear, reference being had to the National Journal of the 5th of February, 1825. You will recollect that Mr. McDuffie moved to instruct the Committee to inquire whether the friends of Mr. Clay had hinted that they would fight for those who paid best, and whether overtures were said to have been made by the friends of Mr. Clay, offering him the appointment of Secretary of State for his influence, and to elect Mr. Adams, and whether his friends gave this information to the friends of General Jackson and hinted that if the friends of Jackson would close with them, &c., &c., giving the Committee the power to examine on oath.

I have no doubt, when properly called on, you will come forth and offer me the statement made to Major Eaton, then to Mr. Kremer, and then to me, and give the names of the friends of Mr. Clay who made it to you.

I will thank you to acknowledge the receipt of this letter on its reaching you.

I have the honor to be, with great respect,

Early in August, 1827, Mr. Buchanan published a card in the Lancaster Journal, embodying the recollections which I have given, but which it is not necessary to reproduce; and after a brief but inconclusive reply from Mr. Markley, the matter passed out of the public mind. Later in the same year (1827) Mr. Clay published an elaborate vindication of his conduct, in the course of which he thus refers to Mr. Buchanan:

“In General Jackson’s letter to Mr. Beverley, of the 6th of June last, he admits that in inferring my privity to the proposition which he describes as 54borne by Mr. Buchanan, he may have done me injustice; and, in his address to the public of the 18th of July last, giving up the name of this gentleman as his only witness, he repeats that he possibly may have done me injustice, in assuming my authority for that proposition. He even deigns to honor me with a declaration of the pleasure which he will experience if I should be able to acquit myself! Mr. Buchanan has been heard by the public; and I feel justified in asserting that the first impression of the whole nation was, as it is yet that of every intelligent mind unbiased by party prejudice, that his testimony fully exonerated me, and demonstrated that General Jackson, to say no more, had greatly misconceived the purport of the interview between them. And further: that so far as any thing improper was disclosed by Mr. Buchanan touching the late Presidential election, it affected General Jackson and his friends exclusively. He having manifestly injured me, speculation was busy, when Mr. Buchanan’s statement appeared, as to the course which the General would pursue, after his gratuitous expression of sympathy with me. There were not wanting many persons who believed that his magnanimity would prompt him publicly to retract his charge, and to repair the wrong which he had done me. I did not participate in that just expectation, and therefore felt no disappointment that it was not realized. Whatever other merits he may possess, I have not found among them, in the course of my relations with him, that of forbearing to indulge vindictive passions. His silent contemplation of, if not his positive acquiescence in, the most extraordinary interpretation of Mr. Buchanan’s statement that ever was given to human language, has not surprised me. If it had been possible for him to render me an act of spontaneous justice by a frank and manly avowal of his error, the testimony now submitted to the public might have been unnecessary.

Dear Sir:—

Ere this can reach you, you will have seen General Jackson’s letter to the public, in which he has given up my name. It will at once strike you to be a most extraordinary production as far as I am concerned. My statement will appear in the Lancaster Journal to-morrow, which I shall send you. I have not suffered my feelings to get the better of my judgment, but have stated the truth in a calm and temperate manner. If General Jackson and our editors shall act with discretion, the storm may blow over without injuring [any one]. Should they, on the contrary, force me to the wall and make it absolutely necessary for the preservation of my own character to defend myself, I know not what may be the consequence.

I have stated the conversation between Markley and myself in as strong terms as the truth would justify, but no stronger. It is in your power to do much to give this matter a proper direction. Indeed I would suggest to you 55the propriety of an immediate visit to Philadelphia for that purpose. My friends are very indignant, but I believe I can keep them right.

You will perceive that General Jackson has cited Mr. Eaton as a witness. I have treated this part of his letter with great mildness. In a letter to me, which I received day before yesterday, the General intimates that George Kremer would confirm his statement. This letter is imprudent, and, in my opinion, an improper one. It is well it has fallen into the hands of a political friend.

You will discover that your knowledge concerning my conversation with General Jackson was nearly correct. The friend who wrote me the letter of the 27th December, 1824, referred to in my communication, was Judge Rogers, then Secretary of State [of Pennsylvania].

Dear Sir:—

I received your letter of the 15th ultimo on Tuesday last. Your address to the public also reached me upon the same day, in the Cincinnati Advertiser. This communication made it necessary for me to publish in detail the conversation which I held with you concerning the Presidential election on the 30th December, 1824. I shall enclose to you in this letter that part of the Lancaster Journal containing it. I regret, beyond expression, that you believed me to be an emissary from Mr. Clay, since some time before the first Harrisburg convention which nominated you, I have ever been your ardent, decided, and, perhaps without vanity I may say, your efficient friend. Every person in this part of the State of Pennsylvania is well acquainted with the fact. It is, therefore, to me a matter of the deepest regret that you should have supposed me to be the “friend of Mr. Clay.” Had I ever entertained a suspicion that such was your belief, I should have immediately corrected your impression.

I shall annex to this letter a copy of that which I wrote to Duff Green, on the 16th of October last. The person whom I consulted in Pennsylvania was the present Judge Rogers of the Supreme Court—then the Secretary of State of this Commonwealth.

The friends of the Administration are making great efforts in Pennsylvania. We have been busily engaged during the summer in counteracting them. Success has, I think, hitherto attended our efforts. I do not fear the vote of the State, although it is believed every member of the State administration, except General Bernard, is hostile to your election. Your security will be in the gratitude and in the hearts of the people.

Please to present my best respects to Mrs. Jackson, and believe me to be, very respectfully, your friend,

56This subject of Mr. Buchanan’s connection with the Presidential election of 1824–5, and its incidents, passed out of the public mind, after the publication of the letters which I have quoted. But it was again revived when Mr. Buchanan became a candidate for the Presidency in 1856. All that it is needful to say here is, that for nearly three years after the election of 1824–5, no impression seems to have existed in the mind of General Jackson that Mr. Buchanan’s interview with him in December, 1824, had any purpose but that which Mr. Buchanan has described; but that in 1827, General Jackson, in the heat of the renewed controversies about the supposed bargain between Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay, took up the erroneous idea that Mr. Buchanan could, if he were to declare the truth, make it apparent that Mr. Clay or his friends had attempted to effect the same kind of bargain with General Jackson, which attempt was indignantly repelled. A candid examination of the facts is all that is needful to convince any one that the General was in error in 1827, and that he was equally in error at a much later period. When he became President, and for a long time thereafter, his confidence in Mr. Buchanan was manifested in so many ways that one is led to believe that his view in 1827 of Mr. Buchanan’s conduct in the matter of the Presidential election of 1824–5 was an exceptional idiosyncrasy, resulting from the excitement which his mind always felt in regard to that event, and which was strongly renewed in him in 1827.

It will be necessary to advert to this subject again, because, when Mr. Buchanan was a candidate for the Presidency in 1856, the whole story was revived by persons who were unfriendly to him, and who then made use of a private letter which was extracted from General Jackson in 1845, in a somewhat artful manner, when he was laboring under a mortal illness. But an account of this political intrigue belongs to the period when it was set on foot.

BITTER OPPOSITION TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JOHN QUINCY ADAMS—BILL FOR THE RELIEF OF THE REVOLUTIONARY OFFICERS—THE PANAMA MISSION—INCIDENTAL REFERENCE TO SLAVERY.

The circumstances attending the election of Mr. Adams led to the formation of a most powerful opposition to his administration, as soon as he was inaugurated. The friends of General Jackson, a numerous and compact body of public men, representing a much larger number of the people of the Union than the friends of Mr. Adams could be said to represent, felt that he had been unfairly deprived of the votes of States in the House of Representatives which should have been given to him. Especially was this the case, they said, in regard to the State of Kentucky, whose Legislature had plainly indicated the wish of a majority of her people that her vote in the House should be given to General Jackson; and when it was announced that Mr. Adams, who had received the unanimous electoral vote of only six States, had obtained the votes of thirteen States in the House, while General Jackson had obtained but seven, and when Mr. Clay had been appointed by Mr. Adams Secretary of State, there was a bitterness of feeling among the supporters of General Jackson, which evinced at once a fixed determination to elect him President at the end of the ensuing four years.

In regard to the state of parties, viewed apart from the merely personal element of leadership and following, there was not much, in the beginning of Mr. Adams’s administration, to distinguish its supporters from its opponents. In the course, however, of that administration, those who defended it from the fierce assaults of the opposition, began to take the name of National Republicans, while the opponents of the administration began to call themselves Democrats. Included in the 58opposition were the political friends and followers of Mr. Calhoun, and the political friends and followers of General Jackson; the latter being distinctly known and classified as “Jackson men.” In the Senate there was a number of older men, who were not likely to form an active element of parliamentary opposition or defence; such as Mr. Silsbee of Massachusetts, Mr. Dickerson of New Jersey, Mr. Samuel Smith of Maryland, Mr. William Smith of South Carolina, Mr. Macon of Georgia, Mr. Rowan of Kentucky, and Mr. Hugh L. White of Tennessee. The opposition in the Senate was led by a younger class of men: Mr. Van Buren of New York, Mr. Woodbury of New Hampshire, Mr. Tazewell of Virginia, Mr. Hayne of South Carolina, Mr. Berrien of Georgia, and Mr. Benton of Missouri.^[17] But it was not in the Senate that the great arena of debate between the assailants and the defenders of this administration was to be found during the first year or two of its term. In the House, at the opening of the 19th Congress, which began its session in December, 1825, there was an array of combatants—ardent, active and able debaters. Of these, composing the leaders of the opposition, were Mr. Buchanan, Samuel D. Ingham, William C. Rives, James K. Polk, John Forsyth, George McDuffie, Edward Livingston, William Drayton, William S. Archer, Andrew Stevenson, Mangum, Cambreleng, and Louis McLane. The eccentric John Randolph was also one of the leaders of the opposition. The leading friends of the administration were Webster, Sprague, Bartlett, John Davis, Edward Everett, Burgess, Taylor, Letcher, Wright, Vinton, and Henry L. Storrs.

Before the opposition had marshalled their forces for an attack upon the administration, a debate occurred in the House of Representatives upon a subject that did not involve party divisions. A bill was introduced by a Pennsylvania member for the relief of the surviving officers of the Revolution. It proposed an appropriation of only one million of dollars, and it was confined strictly to the cases of the Revolutionary officers to whom half-pay for life had been granted by Congress in 591780, who had afterwards accepted a commutation of five years’ full pay, in lieu of half-pay for life, and who were paid in certificates that were never worth more than one-fifth of their nominal value, and which were soon depreciated to about one-eighth. The passage of this measure depended upon the prudence and skill of those who favored it. The mover, Mr. Hemphill of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Dayton, had advocated the bill in speeches of much discretion, and there was a good prospect of its adoption. In this state of things, an untoward amendment was offered by a member from Massachusetts, which proposed to increase the appropriation. This had a manifest tendency to defeat the bill; and at this crisis Mr. Buchanan came forward to restate the case of the officers, and to replace the measure on its true footing. He said:

“It is with extreme reluctance I rise at this time to address you. I have made no preparation to speak, except that of carefully reading the documents which have been laid upon our tables; but a crisis seems to have arrived in this debate, when the friends of the bill, if ever, must come forward in its support. I do not consider that the claim of the officers of the Revolution rests upon gratitude alone. It is not an appeal to your generosity only, but to your justice. You owe them a debt, in the strictest sense of the word; and of a nature so meritorious, that, if you shall refuse to pay it, the nation will be disgraced. Formerly, when their claim was presented to Congress, we had, at least, an apology for rejecting it. The country was not then in a condition to discharge this debt without inconvenience. But now, after forty years have elapsed since its creation, with a treasury overflowing, and a national debt so diminished, that, with ordinary economy, it must, in a very few years, be discharged, these officers, the relics of that band which achieved your independence, again present themselves before you, and again ask you for justice. They do not ask you to be generous—they do not ask you to be grateful—but they ask you to pay the debt which was the price of your independence. I term it a debt; and it is one founded upon a most solemn contract, with which these officers have complied, both in its letter and in its spirit, whilst you have violated all its obligations.

“Let us spend a few moments in tracing the history of this claim. It arose out of the distresses of the Continental Army, during the Revolutionary War; and the utter inability of the government, at that time, to relieve them. What, sir, was the situation of that army, when it lay encamped at the Valley Forge? They were naked, and hungry, and barefoot. Pestilence and famine stalked abroad throughout the camp. The first blaze of patriotism which had animated the country, and furnished the army with its officers, had begun to die away. These officers perceived that the contest would be 60long, and bloody, and doubtful. They had felt, by sad experience, that the depreciated pay which they received, so far from enabling them to impart assistance to their wives and children, or hoard up anything for futurity, was not sufficient to supply their own absolute and immediate wants. Placed in this situation, they were daily sending in their resignations, and abandoning the cause of their country. In this alarming crisis, Washington earnestly recommended to Congress to grant the officers half-pay, to commence after the close of the contest, as the only remedy for these evils, within their power. The country was not then able to remunerate the officers for the immense and unequal sacrifices which they were making in its cause. All that it could then do was to present them a prospect of happier days to come, on which hope might rest. With this view, Congress, in May, 1778, adopted a resolution allowing the officers who should continue in service until the end of the war, half-pay for seven years. This resolution produced but a partial effect upon the army. The time of its continuance was to be but short; and there were conditions annexed to it, which, in many cases, would have rendered it entirely inoperative.

“In August, 1779, Congress again acted upon this subject, and resolved, ‘That it be recommended to the several States to grant half-pay for life to the officers who should continue in the service to the end of the war.’ This recommendation was disregarded by every State in the Union, with one exception; and I feel proud that Pennsylvania was that State. She not only granted half-pay for life to the officers of her own line, but she furnished them with clothing and with provisions. Thus, when the General Government became unable to discharge its duty to her officers and soldiers, she voluntarily interposed and relieved their distresses. General Washington, when urging upon Congress the necessity of granting to the officers half-pay for life, pointed to those of the Pennsylvania line as an example of the beneficial consequences which had resulted from that measure.^[18]

“Congress at length became convinced of the necessity of granting to the Continental officers half-pay for life. Without pay and without clothing, they had become disheartened and were about abandoning the service. The darkest period of the Revolution had arrived, and there was but one ray of hope left to penetrate the impending gloom which hung over the army. The officers were willing still to endure privations and sufferings, if they could obtain an assurance that they would be remembered by their country, after it should be blessed with peace and independence. They well knew Congress could not relieve their present wants; all, therefore, they asked was the promise of a future provision. Congress, at length, in October, 1780, resolved, ‘That half-pay for life be granted to the officers in the army of the United States who shall continue in service to the end of the war.’

61“Before the adoption of this resolution, so desperate had been our condition, that even Washington apprehended a dissolution of the army, and had begun to despair of the success of our cause. We have his authority for declaring that, immediately after its adoption, our prospects brightened and it produced the most happy effects. The state of the army was instantly changed. The officers became satisfied with their condition, and, under their command, the army marched to victory and independence. They faithfully and patriotically performed every obligation imposed upon them by the solemn contract into which they had entered with their country.

“How did you perform this contract on your part? No sooner had the dangers of war ceased to threaten our existence—no sooner had peace returned to bless our shores, than we forgot those benefactors to whom, under Providence, we owed our independence. We then began to discover that it was contrary to the genius of our Republican institutions to grant pensions for life. The jealousy of the people was roused, and their fears excited. They dreaded the creation of a privileged order. I do not mean to censure them for this feeling of ill-directed jealousy, because jealousy is the natural guardian of liberty.

“In this emergency, how did the Continental officers act? In such a manner as no other officers of a victorious army had ever acted before. For the purpose of allaying the apprehensions of their fellow-citizens, and complying with the wishes of Congress, they consented to accept five years’ full-pay in commutation for their half-pay for life. This commutation was to be paid in money, or securities were to be given on interest at six per cent., as Congress should find most convenient.

“Did the government ever perform this their second stipulation to the officers? I answer, no. The gentleman from Tennessee was entirely mistaken in the history of the times, when he asserted that the commutation certificates of the officers enabled them to purchase farms, or commence trade, upon leaving the army. Congress had not any funds to pledge for their redemption. They made requisitions upon the States, which shared the same fate with many others, and were entirely disregarded. The faith and the honor of the country, whilst they were intrusted to thirteen independent and jealous State sovereignties, were almost always forfeited. We then had a General Government which had not the power of enforcing its own edicts. The consequence was that, when the officers received their certificates, they were not worth more than about one-fifth of their nominal value, and they very soon fell to one-eighth of that amount.

“Let gentlemen for a moment realize what must then have been the situation and the feelings of these officers. They had spent their best days in the service of their country. They had endured hardships and privations without an example in history. Destitute of everything but patriotism, they had lived for years upon the mere promise of Congress. At the call of their country, they had relinquished half-pay for life, and accepted a new promise of five years’ full-pay. When they had confidently expected to receive this recompense, 62it vanished from their grasp. Instead of money, or securities equal to money, which would have enabled them to embark with advantage in civil employments, they obtained certificates which necessity compelled most of them to sell at the rate of eight for one. The government proved faithless, but they had, what we have not, the plea of necessity, to justify their conduct.

“In 1790, the provision which was made by law for the payment of the public debt, embraced these commutation certificates. They were funded, and the owner of each of them received three certificates; the first for two-thirds of the original amount, bearing an interest immediately of six per cent.; the second for the remaining third, but without interest for ten years; and the third for the interest which had accumulated, bearing an interest of only three per cent.

“What does this bill propose? Not to indemnify the officers of the Revolution for the loss which they sustained in consequence of the inability of the government, at the close of the war, to comply with its solemn contract. Not, after a lapse of more than forty years, to place them in the situation in which they would have been placed had the government been able to do them justice. It proposes to allow them even less than the difference between what the owners of the commutation certificates received under the funding system, and what these certificates when funded were worth upon their face. My colleague has clearly shown, by a fair calculation, that the allowance will fall considerably short of this difference. If the question now before the committee were to be decided by the people of the United States instead of their Representatives, could any man, for a moment, doubt what would be their determination?

“I hope my friend from Massachusetts will not urge the amendment he has proposed. Judging from past experience, I fear, if it should prevail, the bill will be defeated. Let other classes of persons who think themselves entitled to the bounty of their country present their claims to this House, and they will be fairly investigated. This is what the surviving officers of the Revolution have done. Their case has been thoroughly examined by a committee, who have reported in its favor; and all the information necessary to enable us to decide correctly is now in our possession. I trust their claim will be permitted to rest upon its own foundation. They are old, and for the most part in poverty; it is necessary, if we act at all, that we act speedily, and do them justice without delay. In my opinion, they have a better claim to what this bill contemplates giving them, than any of us have to our eight dollars per day. Gentlemen need apprehend no danger from the precedent; we shall never have another Revolutionary war for independence. We have no reason to apprehend we shall ever again be unable to pay our just debts. Even if that should again be our unfortunate condition, we shall never have another army so patient and so devoted as to sacrifice every selfish consideration for the glory, the happiness, and the independence of their country. I shall vote against the proposed amendment because I will do no act which may have a tendency to defeat this bill.”

63Mr. Buchanan used to relate, in after years, that at this juncture, the friends of the bill were dismayed by the course of Mr. Everett, who was then a young member from Massachusetts, and who wished to make and insisted upon making a rhetorical speech. The friends of the bill remonstrated with him, that all had been said that needed to be said; and that the only thing to be done was to vote down the amendment, after which the bill was almost certain to be passed. But Mr. Everett persisted, and made his speech while the amendment was pending.^[19] He “demanded” of the House to pass the bill, and by passing it as proposed to be amended by his colleague to give the survivors of the Revolution “all they ask and more than they ask.” The consequence was that the appropriation was increased. Then a member from New York moved to extend its provisions to every militia-man who had served for a certain time. Then other amendments embraced widows and orphans, artificers and musicians, the troops who fought at Bunker Hill, the troops raised in Vermont, those of the battles of Saratoga and Bennington, and of the Southern battles. The enemies of the original measure promoted this method of dealing with it, and finally, when thus loaded down with provisions not at all germane to its real principle, it was recommitted to the Committee and was therefore lost.

The first important subject of contention on which the opposition 64put forth their strength against the administration of Mr. Adams related to what was called “The Panama Mission.” In his Message of December, 1825, the President made the following announcement:

“Among the measures which have been suggested to the Spanish-American Republics by the new relations with one another resulting from the recent changes of their condition, is that of assembling at the Isthmus of Panama, a Congress at which each of them should be represented, to deliberate upon objects important to the welfare of all. The republics of Colombia, of Mexico, and of Central America, have already deputed plenipotentiaries to such a meeting, and they have invited the United States to be also represented there by their ministers. The invitation has been accepted, and ministers on the part of the United States will be commissioned to attend at those deliberations, and to take part in them, so far as may be compatible with that neutrality from which it is neither our intention nor the desire of the other American States that we should depart.”

It was, beyond controversy, the constitutional prerogative of the President, as the organ of all intercourse with foreign nations, to accept this invitation, and to name Ministers to the proposed Congress. The Senate might or might not concur with him in this step, and might or might not confirm the nominations of the proposed Ministers. He sent to the Senate the names of John Sergeant of Philadelphia, and Richard C. Anderson of Kentucky, as the Ministers of the United States to the proposed Congress at Panama. The Senatorial opposition, led by Mr. Benton and Mr. Tazewell, after a long discussion in secret session, took a vote upon a resolution that it was inexpedient to send Ministers to Panama. This was rejected by a vote of 24 to 19; and the nominations were then confirmed by a vote of 27 to 17 in the case of Mr. Anderson, and by a vote of 26 to 18 in the case of Mr. Sergeant. The diplomatic department having thus fully acted upon and confirmed the proposed measure, it remained for the House of Representatives to initiate and pass the necessary appropriation. The turn that was given to the subject in the House gave rise to an animated debate on a very important constitutional topic, in which Mr. Buchanan, although opposed to the Mission, asserted it to be the duty of the House to make the appropriation, now that the Senate had confirmed the appointment of the Ministers. This 65debate began upon a resolution reported by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, that “in the opinion of the House it is expedient to appropriate the funds necessary to enable the President of the United States to send Ministers to the Congress of Panama.” To this resolution, Mr. McLane of Delaware had moved an amendment, which, if it had been adopted, would have placed the House of Representatives in the anomalous attitude of annexing, as a condition of its grant, instructions as to the mode in which the diplomatic agents of the United States were to act in carrying out a foreign mission. Mr. Buchanan, who was in favor of the amendments, was also in favor of making the appropriation necessary to enable the President to send the Mission; and in support of this constitutional duty of the House, he made an argument on the 11th of April (1826) which drew from Mr. Webster the compliment that he had placed this part of the subject in a point of view which could not be improved.^[20] Mr. Buchanan said:

“I know there are several gentlemen on this floor, who approve of the policy of the amendments proposed, and wish to express an opinion in their favor; and who yet feel reluctant to vote for them, because it is their intention finally to support the appropriation bill. They think, if the amendments should be rejected, consistency would require them to refuse any grant of money to carry this mission into effect. I shall, therefore, ask the attention of the committee, whilst I endeavor to prove that there would not, in any event, be the slightest inconsistency in this course.

“I assert it to be a position susceptible of the clearest proof, that the House of Representatives is morally bound, unless in extreme cases, to vote the salaries of Ministers who have been constitutionally created by the President and Senate. The expediency of establishing the mission was one question, which has already been decided by the competent authority; when the appropriation bill shall come before us, we will be called upon to decide another and a very different question. Richard C. Anderson and John Sergeant 66have been regularly nominated by the President of United States to be Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers Plenipotentiary ‘to the Assembly of American nations at Panama.’ The Senate, after long and solemn deliberation, have advised and consented to their appointment. These Ministers have been created—they have been called into existence under the authority of the Constitution of the United States. That venerated instrument declares, that the President ‘shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur: and he shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.’ What, then, will be the question upon the appropriation bill? In order to enable our Ministers to proceed upon their mission, the President has asked us to grant the necessary appropriation. Shall we incur the responsibility of refusing? Shall we thus defeat the mission which has already been established by the only competent constitutional authorities? This House has, without doubt, the physical power to refuse the appropriation, and it possesses the same power to withhold his salary from the President of the United States. The true question is, what is the nature of our constitutional obligation? Are we not morally bound to pay the salaries given by existing laws to every officer of the Government? By the act of the first May, 1810, the outfit and salary to be allowed by the President to Foreign Ministers are established. Such Ministers have been regularly appointed to attend the Congress at Panama. What right then have we to refuse to appropriate the salaries which they have a right to receive, under the existing laws of the land?

“I admit there may be extreme cases, in which this House would be justified in withholding such an appropriation. ‘The safety of the people is the supreme law.’ If, therefore, we should believe any mission to be dangerous, either to the existence or to the liberties of this country, necessity would justify us in breaking the letter to preserve the spirit of the Constitution. The same necessity would equally justify us in refusing to grant to the President his salary, in certain extreme cases, which might easily be imagined.

“But how far would your utmost power extend? Can you re-judge the determination of the President and Senate, and destroy the officers which they have created? Might not the President immediately send these Ministers to Panama; and, if he did, would not their acts be valid? It is certain, if they should go, they run the risk of never receiving a salary; but still they might act as Plenipotentiaries. By withholding the salary of the President, you cannot withhold from him the power; neither can you, by refusing to appropriate for this mission, deprive the Ministers of their authority. It is beyond your control to make them cease to be Ministers.

“The constitutional obligation to provide for a Minister, is equally strong as that to carry into effect a treaty. It is true, the evils which may flow 67from your refusal may be greater in the one case than the other. If you refuse to appropriate for a treaty, you violate the faith of the country to a foreign nation. You do no more, however, than omit to provide for the execution of an instrument which is declared by the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land. In the case which will be presented to you by the appropriation bill, is the nature of your obligation different? I think not. The power to create the Minister is contained in the same clause of the Constitution with that to make the treaty. They are powers of the same nature. The one is absolutely necessary to carry the other into effect. You cannot negotiate treaties without Ministers. They are the means by which the treaty-making power is brought into action. You are, therefore, under the same moral obligation to appropriate money to discharge the salary of a Minister, that you would be to carry a treaty into effect.

“If you ask me for authority to establish these principles, I can refer you to the opinion of the first President of the United States—the immortal Father of his Country—who, in my humble judgment, possessed more practical wisdom, more political foresight, and more useful constitutional knowledge, than all his successors.

“I have thus, I think, established the position, that gentlemen who vote for the amendments now before the committee, even if they should not prevail, may, without inconsistency, give their support to the appropriation bill.”

Sound as this was, it is a little remarkable that Mr. Buchanan should not have considered that the duty of voting the necessary appropriation precluded the House of Representatives from dictating what subjects the Ministers were to discuss or not to discuss. Those who favored the proposed amendments founded themselves on the legal maxim that he who has the power to give may annex to the gift whatever condition he chooses. This was well answered by Mr. Webster, that in making appropriations for such purposes the House did not make gifts, but performed a duty. The amendments were rejected on the 21st of April, and on the following day the Panama Appropriation Bill was passed, Mr. Buchanan voting with the majority.^[21]

Some of the topics incidentally touched upon in the discursive 68debate on this Panama Mission are of little interest now. But one may be referred to, because it related to the dangerous topic of slavery. An apprehension was felt by those who were opposed to this measure, and by Mr. Buchanan, among others, that the Spanish-American Republics, more particularly Mexico and Colombia, might concert measures at this proposed Congress to seize the West India Islands, and raise there the standard of emancipation and social revolution. Those who entertained this apprehension, therefore, did not wish to see the moral and political influence of this proposed Congress increased by the participation of the United States in its proceedings. It may have been an unfounded fear; but in truth, excepting in so far as the objects of this assembly were understood and explained by the American Administration itself, very little was known of the purposes entertained by its original projectors. It was certainly not unnatural, in the then condition of our own country, and of the West Indies, in regard to the matter of slavery, that public men in the United States should have been cautious in regard to this exciting topic. At all events, it was introduced incidentally, in the discussion on the proposed Mission, and Mr. Buchanan thus expressed himself upon it:

“Permit me here, for a moment, to speak upon a subject to which I have never before adverted upon this floor, and to which, I trust, I may never again have occasion to advert. I mean the subject of slavery. I believe it to be a great political and a great moral evil. I thank God, my lot has been cast in a State where it does not exist. But, while I entertain these opinions, I know it is an evil at present without a remedy. It has been a curse entailed upon us by that nation which now makes it a subject of reproach to our institutions. It is, however, one of those moral evils, from which it is impossible for us to escape, without the introduction of evils infinitely greater. There are portions of this Union, in which, if you emancipate your slaves, they will become masters. There can be no middle course. Is there any man in this Union who could, for a moment, indulge in the horrible idea of abolishing slavery by the massacre of the high-minded, and the chivalrous race of men in the South. I trust there is not one. For my own part I would, without hesitation, buckle on my knapsack, and march in company with my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Everett) in defence of their cause.”^[22]

GREAT INCREASE OF GENERAL JACKSON’S POPULARITY—“RETRENCHMENT” MADE A POLITICAL CRY—DEBATE ON THE TARIFF—BUCHANAN ON INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS—THE INTERESTS OF NAVIGATION—THE CUMBERLAND ROAD AGAIN DISCUSSED—INELIGIBILITY OF A PRESIDENT.

The 20th Congress, which assembled in December, 1827, opened with a great increase in the forces of the opposition. The elections in the autumn of 1826 evinced an extraordinary growth of General Jackson’s popularity. Mr. Adams found himself in a minority in both branches of Congress. In the House, the opponents of his administration numbered 111 members, its friends 94. It is quite probable, however, that but for the indiscretion of certain members who have ranked as friends of the administration, the angry and criminating discussion of the subject of “retrenchment,” which was deprecated by the wisest men of the opposition, but into which they were forced, would not have occurred. It was precipitated by the defiant attitude of two or three members who should have allowed the cool leaders of the opposition to strangle it, as they were at first disposed to do. But once commenced, it drew into bitter strife the excited elements of party and personal warfare, and went on through nearly a whole session with little credit to some who participated in it, but in the end to the great and not altogether just damage of the administration.

It happened that on the 22d of January (1828) a member from Kentucky, Mr. Chilton, an earnest “Jackson man,” who had formerly been a clergyman but was now a politician, introduced in the House certain resolutions instructing the Committee of Ways and Means to report what offices could be abolished, what salaries reduced, and other modes of curtailing the expenses of the government. It is apparent that this could not have 71been a step taken by concert with the leaders of the opposition. A party that was daily growing in strength, and that was almost morally certain to overthrow the party of the administration, and to elect the next President, could have had no motive for shackling themselves with a legislative measure reducing the number of offices or the salaries of the officers that must be retained. They could not know in advance how they could carry on the government, and it would be mere folly for them to put laws on the statute-book framed while they were not charged with the duties of administration, and suggested only as a topic for exciting popular discontent against those who were responsible neither for the existing number of offices nor for the salaries paid to them. “Retrenchment,” as a popular cry, was not a movement which the leading men of the opposition in the House of Representatives either needed or desired to initiate. Mr. McDuffie, the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, and a vehement opponent of the administration, objected to Mr. Chilton’s resolutions at the outset. So did Mr. Buchanan; and the latter often said, in subsequent years, that they would have been crushed out of all consideration, if the friends of the administration had left them in the hands of its opponents. They were moved by an inconsiderable member, who was one of the stragglers of the opposition forces, and they were met by administration members who were about equally inconsiderable, in a tone of challenge and defiance. In vain did Mr. McDuffie and Mr. Buchanan contend that the present was no time to discuss the expenditures of the government. In vain did the most considerable and important friends of the administration deprecate an unprofitable, intolerant, and useless debate. The mover of the resolutions would not be silenced, and the few indiscreet supporters of the administration, who demanded that their discussion should go on, would not permit them to receive their proper quietus by the application of “the previous question.” Never was a deliberative body drawn, in spite of the unwillingness of its best members on both sides, into a more unseemly and profitless discussion.

Among the friends of General Jackson who deprecated and endeavored to put a stop to this discussion was Mr. Edward Livingston of Louisiana, the oldest member of the House, and 72a person of great distinction. He made an earnest appeal to the House to end the whole matter by referring the resolutions to a committee without further debate. This was not acceded to by the friends of the administration, who wished to continue the discussion. Mr. Edward Everett, then a young member from Massachusetts, moved an adjournment after Mr. Livingston’s effort to terminate the whole discussion, in order to make a speech, which he delivered on the 1st of February. Mr. Buchanan said in reply to him: “This debate would have ended on Thursday last, after the solemn appeal for that purpose, which was made to the House by the venerable gentleman from Louisiana, had not the gentleman from Massachusetts himself prevented it by moving an adjournment. That gentleman ought to know that he can never throw himself into any debate without giving it fresh vigor and importance.”

In the course of this speech, Mr. Buchanan made some allusion to the alleged “bargain and corruption” by which Mr. Adams had been made President; and he thus touched upon the only important consideration that could be said to belong to the circumstances of that election:

“Before, however, I commence my reply to that gentleman, I beg leave to make a few observations on the last Presidential election. I shall purposely pass over every charge which has been made, that it was accomplished by bargain and sale or by actual corruption. If that were the case, I have no knowledge of the fact, and shall therefore say nothing about it. I shall argue this question as though no such charges had ever been made. So far as it regards the conduct which the people of the United States ought to pursue, at the approaching election, I agree entirely with the eloquent gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Randolph] (I cannot with propriety call him my friend), that it can make no difference whether a bargain existed or not. Nay, in some aspects in which the subject may be viewed, the danger to the people would be the greater, if no corruption had existed. It is true, that this circumstance ought greatly to influence our individual opinions of the men who now wield the destinies of the Republic; but yet the precedent would be at least equally dangerous in the one case as in the other. If flagrant and gross corruption had existed, every honest man would start from it with instinctive horror, and the people would indignantly hurl those men from the seats of power, who had thus betrayed their dearest interests. If the election were pure, there is, therefore, the greater danger in the precedent. I believe, in my soul, that the precedent which was established at the last Presidential election, ought 73to be reversed by the people, and this is one of my principal reasons for opposing the re-election of the present Chief Magistrate.

“Let us examine this subject more closely. General Jackson was returned by the people of this country to the House of Representatives, with a plurality of electoral votes. The distinguished individual who is now the Secretary of State, was then the Speaker of this House. It is perfectly well known, that, without his vote and influence, Mr. Adams could not have been elected President. After the election, we beheld that distinguished individual, and no man in the United States witnessed the spectacle with more regret than I did, descending—yes, Sir, I say descending—from the elevated station which you now occupy, into the cabinet of the President whom he had elected.

“In the midnight of danger, during the darkest period of the late war, ‘his thrilling trump had cheered the land.’ Although among the great men of that day there was no acknowledged leader upon this floor, yet I have been informed, upon the best authority, that he was ‘primus inter pares.’ I did wish, at a future time, to see him elevated still higher. I am one of the last men in the country who could triumph over his fallen fortunes. Should he ever return to what I believe to be correct political principles, I shall willingly fight in the same ranks with him as a companion—nay, after a short probation, I should willingly acknowledge him as a leader. What brilliant prospects has that man not sacrificed!

“This precedent, should it be confirmed by the people at the next election, will be one of most dangerous character to the Republic. The election of President must, I fear, often devolve upon this House. We have but little reason to expect that any amendment, in relation to this subject, will be made to the Constitution in our day. There are so many conflicting interests to reconcile, so many powers to balance, that, when we consider the large majority in each branch of Congress, and the still larger majority of States, required to amend the Constitution, the prospect of any change is almost hopeless. I believe it will long remain just as it is. What an example, then, will this precedent, in the pure age of the Republic, present to future times! The people owe it to themselves, if the election must devolve upon this House, never to sanction the principle that one of its members may accept, from the person whom he has elected, any high office, much less the highest in his gift. Such a principle, if once established, must, in the end, destroy the purity of this House, and convert it into a corrupt electoral vote. If the individual to whom I have alluded, could elect a President and receive from him the office of Secretary of State from the purest motives, other men may, and hereafter will, pursue the same policy from the most corrupt. ‘If they do these things in the green tree, what shall be done in the dry?’

“This precedent will become a cover under which future bargains and corrupt combinations will be sanctioned, under which the spirit of the Constitution will be sacrificed to its letter.”

74It is not needful to describe the topics of this discussion. Mr. Chilton’s resolutions, after being somewhat amended, were sent to a Select Committee on Retrenchment. The result was a majority and a minority report, of which six thousand copies were printed and circulated through the country. I turn from this subject to matters of more importance.

Mr. Buchanan’s position in this Congress required him to exert his powers as a debater more than ever before. The House of Representatives was at this time a body in which real debate was carried on upon some subjects, however the discussion on “retrenchment” may be characterized. Its discussions on the tariff, commencing on the 4th of March and terminating on the 15th of May, were conducted with great ability. Among the best speeches on the tariff bill of this session, there is one by Mr. Peleg Sprague of Maine, and one by Mr. Buchanan. Both exhibit a great deal of research. Mr. Buchanan’s speech, begun in Committee of the Whole on the 2d of April, in answer to Mr. Sprague, is an excellent specimen of business debate. The details on which these two gentlemen differed, and on which the debate between them and others chiefly turned, are of little interest now; nor does any tariff debate afford much development of permanent principles. So varying are the circumstances which from time to time give rise to an application of the doctrines that are indicated by the terms “free-trade” and “protection.” Still there may be found in this tariff speech of Mr. Buchanan, matter which is of some interest in his personal history as an American statesman, because it shows that he had now risen to the rank of a statesman, and because it gives his general views of what had at this time become known as “the American System.”

Mr. Buchanan, on this occasion, felt that he was combating a disposition to favor certain interests at the expense of others. In the debate on the tariff of 1824, when Mr. Clay developed his views on the subject of protection, and Mr. Webster found fault with the details of a measure which he said could not be properly characterized as an American System, Mr. Buchanan had shown that while he was ready to accede to a tariff for the incidental protection of our own manufactures, he was not disposed to carry the doctrines of protection so far as to injure the 75agricultural classes; but that in imposing the duties necessary to defray the expenses of the government, he should take care to benefit indirectly both the manufacturing and the producing interests. In 1828 the proposed alterations of the tariff aimed at a more uniform operation of the customs duties upon all the great interests of the country. A motion made by Mr. Sprague, to strike from the bill an additional duty of five cents per gallon on molasses, and twenty-five dollars per ton on hemp, led to a discussion on the navigating interests, as affected by such an amendment, and the whole subject of what was meant by protection and “the American system” came up afresh. The following extracts from Mr. Buchanan’s speech afford fair specimens of his manner of dealing with this subject:

I shall cheerfully submit to the public judgment whether the bill, although I dislike the minimum principle which it contains, does not afford sufficient protection to the manufacturers of woolens. I think it does; but I wish to be distinctly understood, in relation to myself, that I always stand ready, in a fair spirit, to do everything in my power to promote the passage of a just and judicious tariff, which shall be adequate for their protection; and that, for the sake of conciliation, and to effect this purpose, I am willing to sacrifice individual opinion to a considerable extent.

What, Sir, is the American System? Is it the system advocated by the gentleman from Maine, which would build up one species of domestic industry at the expense of all the rest, which would establish a prohibition and consequent monopoly in favor of the woolen manufacturer whilst it denied all protection to the farmer? Certainly not. The American System consists in affording equal and just legislative protection to all the great interests of the country. It is no respecter of persons. It does not distinguish between the farmer who plows the soil in Pennsylvania and the manufacturer of wool in New England. Being impartial, it embraces all. There is, in one respect, a striking difference between the farmer, the merchant, and the manufacturer. The farmer eating the bread of toil, but of independence, scarcely ever complains. If he suffers, he suffers in silence; you rarely hear him, upon this floor, asking redress for his grievances. He relies with that confidence which belongs to his character upon the justice of his country, and does not come here with importunate demands. The case is different in regard to the manufacturer and the merchant. When they feel themselves aggrieved—when they require the aid of your legislation, then complaints ring throughout the country, from Georgia to Maine. They never cease to ask, until they obtain. And shall this contented and uncomplaining disposition of the great agricultural interest, be used as an argument upon this floor against affording it relief? I trust not.

76The gentleman from Maine has shown himself to be a true disciple of the Harrisburg Convention School. Even that convention, although the chief objects of their regard appeared to be wool and woolens, recommended further protection to iron, hemp, flax, and the articles manufactured from them, and to domestic distilled spirits. The gentleman from Maine has moved to strike from the bill additional duties which it proposes upon the importation of foreign hemp and molasses; and in his speech, he has argued against any additional duties either upon iron, or steel, or flax, or foreign spirits. In his opinion, therefore, the American System can embrace no other interest except that of the growers and manufacturers of wool.

[Here Mr. Sprague explained. He said his observations upon the other items, besides those he had moved to strike from the bill, were only intended to illustrate what would be their effect on the navigating interest.]

Mr. Buchanan resumed. I perceive, from the gentleman’s explanation, I did not misunderstand his argument. If this be the American System, I should like to know it as soon as possible; for then I shall be opposed to it. I venture to assert that, if those with whom the gentleman from Maine usually acts upon this floor have embraced the opinions which he has avowed, it is a vain, a culpable waste of time to proceed further with this discussion. Let the bill at once go to the tomb of all the Capulets. If the New England manufacturer must be protected, whilst the Pennsylvania farmer is abandoned—if this be the American System, instead of being a mourner at its funeral, I shall rejoice that it has met the fate which it deserved, and has been consigned to an early grave.

The Legislature of Pennsylvania has given us what, in my opinion, is the correct version of the American System. They have declared that “the best interests of our country demand that every possible exertion should be made to procure the passage of an act of Congress imposing such duties as will enable our manufacturers to enter into fair competition with foreign manufacturers, and protect the farmer, the growers of hemp and wool, and the distiller of spirits from domestic materials, against foreign competition. The people of Pennsylvania do not ask for such a tariff as would secure to any one class, or to any section of the country, a monopoly. They want a system of protection which will extend its blessings, as well as its burdens, as equally as possible over every part of the Union; to be uniform in its operation upon the rich as well as the poor.” They have therefore instructed their Senators, and requested their Representatives, “to procure, if practicable, the establishment of such a tariff as will afford additional protection to our domestic manufactures, especially of woolen and fine cotton goods, glass, and such other articles as, in their opinion, require the attention of Congress, so as to enable our citizens fairly to compete with foreign enterprise, capital, and experience, and give encouragement to the citizens of the grain-growing States, by laying an additional duty upon the importation of foreign spirits, flax, china ware, hemp, wool, and bar iron.”

77This resolution speaks a language which I am proud to hear from the Legislature of my native State.

If it be the disposition of a majority of the members of this committee to strike out of the bill iron, hemp, foreign spirits and molasses, no Representative from the State of Pennsylvania, who regards either the interest or the wishes of his constituents, will dare to vote for what would then remain. The time has forever past when such a measure could have received our sanction. We shall have no more exclusive tariffs for the benefit of any one portion of the Union. The tariff of 1824 partook much of this character; it contained no additional duty on foreign spirits or molasses, and only added five dollars per ton to the duty on foreign hemp. So far as the grain-growing States expected to derive peculiar benefits from that measure, they have been, in a great degree, disappointed.

What was the course which gentlemen pursued in relation to the woolen bill of the last session? I endeavored to introduce into it a small protection for our hemp and domestic spirits. We were then told that my attempt would endanger the fate of the bill; that the period of the session was too late to introduce amendments; and that if we would then extend protection to the manufacturers of wool, a similar protection should, at a future time, be extended to the agricultural interest of the grain-growing States. My respectable colleague [Mr. Forward] has informed the committee that he voted for the bill of the last session under that delusion. How sadly the picture is now reversed! When an interest in New England, which has been estimated at 40,000,000 of dollars, is at stake, and is now about to sink, as has been alleged, for want of adequate protection, it seems that gentlemen from that portion of the Union would rather consign it to inevitable destruction than yield the protection which the present bill will afford to the productions of the Middle and Western States. If they are prepared to act upon a policy so selfish, let them at once declare it, and not waste weeks upon a bill which can never become a law.

The gentleman from Maine endeavored to sustain his motives by attempting to prove that, if the duties proposed by the bill should be imposed upon hemp and molasses, it would injure, nay, probably destroy the navigation of the country. Indeed he pronounced its epitaph. It is gone! Five cents per gallon upon molasses, and twenty-five dollars per ton upon hemp will sink our navigating interest; will sweep our vessels from the ocean! When I compare the storm of eloquence and of argument which the gentleman has employed to strike out hemp and molasses from this bill, with the object to be attained, he reminded me—

An additional duty of five cents per gallon on molasses and twenty-five dollars per ton upon hemp will consign the navigation of the country to inevitable and almost immediate destruction! This is the kind of argument which the gentleman has thought proper to address to the committee.

78The gentleman from Maine has said that our navigation goes abroad unprotected to struggle against the world; and he has expatiated at length upon this part of the subject. I trust I shall be able to prove, without fatiguing the committee, that no interest belonging to this or any other country ever received a more continued or a more efficient protection than the navigation of the United States. I heartily approve this policy. I would not, if I could, withdraw from it an atom of the protection which it now enjoys. I shall never attempt to array the great and leading interests of the country against each other. I am neither the exclusive advocate of commerce, of manufactures, or of agriculture. The American System embraces them all. I am the advocate of all. When, therefore, I attempt to show to the committee the protection which has been extended by this government to its navigation, I do it in reply to the argument of the gentleman from Maine, and not in a spirit of hostility to that important interest.

Mr. Buchanan then entered upon an elaborate historical examination of the care for the interests of our navigation that had been exerted by Congress from 1789 to the time when he was speaking.^[23] On the subject of the navy, as likely to be affected by measures that were complained of for a tendency to depress the commercial marine, he said:

“The gentleman from Maine has used a most astonishing argument against any further protection to hemp and flax and iron. We ought not further to encourage our farmers to grow flax and hemp, nor our manufacturers to produce iron. And why? Because you will thus deprive the navigating interest of the freight which they earn, by carrying these articles from Russia to this country. Can the gentleman be serious in contending that, for the sake of affording freight to the ship-owners, we ought to depend upon a foreign country for a supply of these articles? This argument strikes at the root of the whole American System. Upon the same principle we ought not to manufacture any article whatever at home, because this will deprive our ships of the carriage of it from abroad. This principle, had it been adopted in practice, would have left us where we were at the close of the American Revolution. We should still have been dependent upon foreign nations for articles of the first necessity. This argument amounts to a proclamation of war, by our navigation, against the agriculture and manufactures of the country. You must not produce, because we will then lose the carriage, is the sum and substance of the argument. Am I then to be seriously 79told, that for the purpose of encouraging our ship-owners, our farmers ought to be deprived of the markets of their own country, for those agricultural productions which they can supply in abundance? I did not expect to have heard such an argument upon this floor.

“By encouraging domestic industry, whether it be applied to agriculture or manufactures, you promote the best interests of your navigation. You furnish it with domestic exports to scatter over the world. This is the true American System. It protects all interests; it abandons none. It never arrays one against another. Upon the principles of the gentleman, we ought to sacrifice all the other interests of the country to promote our navigation. This is asking too much.

“The gentleman from Maine seems to apprehend great danger to the navy from the passage of this bill. He appears to think it will fall with so much oppression upon our navigation and fisheries, that these nurseries of seamen for the navy may be greatly injured, if not altogether destroyed.

“In regard to the value and importance of a navy to this country, I cordially agree with the gentleman from Maine. Every prejudice of my youth was enlisted in its favor, and the judgment of riper years has strengthened and confirmed those early impressions. It is the surest bond of our Union. The Western States have a right to demand from this government that the mouth of the Mississippi shall be kept open, both in war and in peace. If you should not afford them a free passage to the ocean, you cannot expect to retain them in the Union; they are, therefore, as much, if not more, interested in cherishing the navy than any other portion of the Republic. The feeling in its favor contains in it nothing sectional—it is general. We are all interested in its preservation and extension. Unlike standing armies, a navy never did, nor ever will, destroy the liberties of any country. It is our most efficient and least dangerous arm of defence.

“To what, then, does the argument of the gentleman lead? Although iron, and hemp, and flax, and their manufactures, are essential to the very existence of a navy, yet he would make us dependent for them upon the will of the Emperor of Russia, or the King of Sweden. A statesman would as soon think of being dependent on a foreign nation for gunpowder, or cannon, or cannon-balls, or muskets, as he would for the supply of iron, or flax, or hemp, for our navy. Even if these articles could not be produced as cheaply in this as in other countries, upon great national principles, then domestic production ought to be encouraged, even if it did tax the community. They are absolutely necessary for our defence. Without them, what would become of you, if engaged in war with a great naval power? You would then be as helpless as if you were deprived of gunpowder or of cannon. Without them, your navy would be perfectly useless. Shall we, then, in a country calculated by nature above all others for their production, refuse to lend them a helping hand? I trust not.

“The gentleman from Maine has said much about our fisheries, and the injurious effects which the present bill will have upon them. From this argument, 80I was induced again to read the bill, supposing that it might possibly contain some latent provision, hostile to the fisheries, which I had not been able to detect. Indeed, one might have supposed, judging merely from the remarks of the gentleman, without a reference to the bill, that it aimed a deadly blow against this valuable branch of our national industry. I could find nothing in it, which even touched the fisheries. They have ever been special favorites of our legislation. I shall not pretend to enumerate, because the task might seem invidious, the different acts of Congress affording them protection. They are numerous. The gentleman has, in my opinion, been very unfortunate in his complaints that they have not been sufficiently protected. From the origin of this government, they have been cherished, in every possible manner, by our legislation. For their benefit we have adopted a system of prohibitions, of drawbacks, and of bounties, unknown to our laws in relation to any other subject. They have grown into national importance, and have become a great interest of the country. They should continue to be cherished, because they are the best nurseries of our seamen. I would not withdraw from them an atom of the protection which they have received; on the contrary, I should cheerfully vote them new bounties, if new bounties were necessary to sustain them. They are the very last interest in the country which ought to complain.

“The gentleman, whilst he strenuously opposed any additional protection to domestic iron, and domestic hemp, surely could not have remembered, that the productions of the fisheries enjoy a monopoly of the home market. The duties in their favor are so high as to exclude foreign competition. We do not ask such prohibitory duties upon foreign iron, flax, or hemp. We demand but a moderate increase; and yet the fisheries, which are protected by prohibitory duties, meet us and deny to us this reasonable request.”request.”

That Mr. Buchanan’s opposition to the administration of Mr. John Quincy Adams was not carried on in the spirit of a partisan is evinced by his action on an appropriation asked for to enable the Executive to continue and complete a system of surveys, preparatory to a general plan of internal improvements. There was much opposition to this appropriation, especially on the part of those who denied the power of the General Government to make such public works as were then classed as “internal improvements.” Mr. Buchanan met their objections as follows:

Mr. Buchanan expressed his dissent from the opinions avowed by the two gentlemen who had preceded him. The true question ought to be distinctly stated. The act of 1824 sanctioned the policy, not of immediately entering upon a plan of internal improvement, but of preparing for it, by 81obtaining surveys, plans, and estimates in relation to the various roads and canals that were required throughout the country. The sum of $30,000 had been appropriated, not for a single year, but for a specific purpose, which purpose had not yet been accomplished. Many surveys were now in progress, which were not more than half completed, and the question was whether the House would withdraw the means of completing them. A discussion of the general policy of the plan was out of place on an appropriation bill. Whatever might be decided as to carrying such a system of internal improvement into effect, these surveys were of great advantage to the American people. Should that system never be adopted, this mass of information could not fail to be useful. The constitutional question of power did not fairly arise on a proposal to employ the engineers already at the disposal of the War Department, in a particular manner.

Should the time ever arrive when we have more in the Treasury than we know what to do with, the argument of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Barbour] might have some force. But the question now was, whether the House would arrest these surveys? Mr. B., for one, would not do it. He would give the administration the sum now asked, and would hold them responsible for its application.

There is no more interesting part of Mr. Buchanan’s early Congressional career than his course on the subject of the Cumberland Road. We have seen that when he first had occasion to act on this subject as a member of Congress, he was inclined to accept the doctrine that Congress had power to establish this road, and to levy tolls for its support. But he had not then closely examined this subject. Mr. Monroe’s message vetoing the Cumberland Road bill of 1822 produced in Mr. Buchanan’s mind a decided change. At a subsequent session, he endeavored, but without success, to have the road retroceded to the States through which it passed, on condition that they would support it by levying tolls.^[24] In 1828–29 he renewed this effort, and on the 29th of January, 1829, he made an elaborate speech upon the whole subject, which is of sufficient interest and importance to warrant its reproduction entire. As a constitutional argument it is valuable; and for its independent attitude towards the people of his own State, it is exceedingly creditable to him as a public man.

82Mr. Buchanan said that the bill and the amendment now before the committee presented a subject for discussion of the deepest interest to the American people. It is not a question (said Mr. B.) whether we shall keep the road in repair by appropriations; nor whether we shall expend other millions in constructing other Cumberland roads—these would be comparatively unimportant; but it is a question upon the determination of which, in my humble judgment, depend the continued existence of the Federal Constitution in anything like its native purity. Let it once be established that the Federal Government can enter the dominion of the States; interfere with their domestic concerns; erect toll-gates over all the military, commercial, and post-roads within their territories, and define and punish, by laws of Congress, in the courts of the United States, offences committed upon these roads,—and the barriers which were erected by our ancestors with so much care, between Federal and State power, are entirely prostrated. This single act would, in itself, be a longer stride towards consolidation than the Federal Government have ever made; and it would be a precedent for establishing a construction for the Federal Constitution so vague and so indefinite, that it might be made to mean anything or nothing.

It is not my purpose, upon the present occasion, again to agitate the questions which have so often been discussed in this House, as to the powers of Congress in regard to internal improvements. For my own part, I cheerfully accord to the Federal Government the power of subscribing stock, in companies incorporated by the State, for the purpose of making roads and canals; and I entertain no doubt whatever but that we can, under the Constitution, appropriate the money of our constituents directly to the construction of internal improvements, with the consent of the States through which they may pass. These powers I shall ever be willing to exercise, upon all proper occasions. But I shall never be driven to support any road, or any canal, which my judgment disapproves, by a fear of the senseless clamor which is always attempted to be raised against members upon this floor, as enemies to internal improvement, who dare to vote against any measure which the Committee on Roads and Canals think proper to bring before this House. It was my intention to discuss the power of Congress to pass the bill, and its policy, separately. Upon reflection I find these subjects are so intimately blended, they cannot be separated. I shall therefore consider them together.

“Before, however, I enter upon the subject, it will be necessary to present a short historical sketch of the Cumberland Road. It owes its origin to a compact between the State of Ohio and the United States. In 1802, Congress proposed to the convention which formed the constitution of Ohio, that they would grant to that State one section of land to each township, for the use of schools; that they would also grant to it several tracts of land on which there were salt springs; and that five per cent. of the net proceeds of the future sale of public lands within its territory should be applied to the purpose of making public roads, ‘leading from the navigable waters emptying into the Atlantic to the Ohio, to the said State, and through the same.’ The 83act, however, distinctly declares that such roads shall be laid out under the authority of Congress, ‘with the consent of the several States through which the road shall pass.’ These terms were offered by Congress, to the State of Ohio, provided she would exempt, by an irrevocable ordinance, all the land which should be sold by the United States within her territory, from every species of taxation, for the space of five years, after the day of sale. This proposition of Congress was accepted by the State of Ohio, and it thus became a compact, the terms of which could not be changed without the consent of both the contracting parties. By the terms of the compact, this five per cent. of the net proceeds of the sales of the public land was applicable to two objects; the first, the construction of roads leading from the Atlantic to the State of Ohio; and the second, the construction of roads within that State. In 1803, Congress, at the request of Ohio, apportioned this fund between these two objects. Three of the five per cent. was appropriated to the construction of roads within the State, leaving only two per cent. applicable to roads leading from the navigable waters of the Atlantic to it.

“In March, 1806, Congress determined to apply this two per cent. fund to the object for which it was destined, and passed ‘an act to regulate the laying out and making of a road from Cumberland, in the State of Maryland, to the State of Ohio.’ Under the provisions of this act, before the President could proceed to cut a single tree upon the route of the road, it was made necessary to obtain the consent of the States through which it passed. The Federal Government asked Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia for permission to make it, and each of them granted this privilege in the same manner that they would have done to a private individual, or to a corporation created by their own laws. Congress, at that day, asserted no other right than a mere power to appropriate the money of their constituents to the construction of this road, after the consent of these States should be obtained. The idea of a sovereign power in this government to make the road, and to exercise jurisdiction over it, for the purpose of keeping it in repair, does not, then, appear to have ever entered the imagination of the warmest advocate for Federal power. The federalism of that day would have shrunk with horror from such a spectre. There is a circumstance worthy of remark in the act of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, which was passed in April, 1807, authorizing the President of the United States to open this road. It grants this power upon condition that the road should pass through Uniontown and Washington, if practicable. The grant was accepted upon this condition, and the road was constructed. Its length is one hundred and thirty miles, and its construction and repairs have cost the United States one million seven hundred and sixty-six thousand one hundred and sixty-six dollars and thirty-eight cents; whilst the two per cent. fund which we had bound ourselves to apply to this purpose, amounted, on the 30th of June, 1822, the date of the last official statement within my knowledge, only to the sum of one hundred and eighty-seven thousand seven hundred and eighty-six dollars and thirty-one cents, less than one-ninth of the cost of the road. This road has cost the 84United States more than thirteen thousand five hundred dollars per mile. This extravagant expenditure shows conclusively that it is much more politic for us to enlist individual interest in the cause of Internal Improvement, by subscribing stock, than to become ourselves sole proprietors. Any government, unless under extraordinary circumstances, will pay one-third more for constructing a road or canal, than would be expended by individuals in accomplishing the same object.

“I shall now proceed to the argument. Upon a review of this brief history, what is the conclusion at which we must arrive? That this road was made by the United States, as a mere proprietor, to carry into effect a contract with the State of Ohio, and not as a sovereign. In its construction, the Federal Government proceeded as any corporation or private individual would have done. We asked the States for permission to make the road through the territories over which their sovereign authority extended. After that permission had been obtained, we appropriated the money and constructed the road. The State of Pennsylvania even annexed a condition to her grant, with which the United States complied. She also conferred upon the agents of the United States the power of taking materials for the construction and repair of this road, without the consent of the owner, making a just compensation therefor. This compensation was to be ascertained under the laws of the State, and not under those of the United States. The mode of proceeding to assess damages in such cases against the United States was precisely the same as it is against corporations, created by her own laws, for the purpose of constructing roads.

“What, then, does this precedent establish? Simply, that the United States may appropriate money for the construction of a road through the territories of a State, with its consent; and I do not entertain the least doubt but that we possess this power. What does the present bill propose? To change the character which the United States has hitherto sustained, in relation to this road, from that of a simple proprietor to a sovereign. To declare to the nation, that, although they had to ask the States of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia, for permission to make the road, now, after it is completed, they will exercise jurisdiction over it, and collect tolls upon it, under the authority of their own laws, for the purpose of keeping it in repair. We will not ask the States to erect toll-gates for us. We are determined to exercise that power ourselves. The Federal Government first introduced itself into the States as a friend, by permission; it now wishes to hold possession as a sovereign, by power. This road was made in the manner that one independent sovereign would construct a road through the territories of another. Had Virginia been a party to the compact with Ohio, instead of the United States, she would have asked the permission of Maryland and Pennsylvania to construct the Cumberland Road through their territories, and it would have been granted. But what would have been our astonishment, after this permission, had Virginia attempted to assume jurisdiction over the road in Pennsylvania, to erect toll-gates upon it under the authority of her own laws, and 85to punish offenders against these laws in her own courts. Yet the two cases are nearly parallel.

The right to demand toll, and to stop and punish passengers for refusing to pay it, is emphatically a sovereign right, and has ever been so considered amongst civilized nations. The power to erect toll-gates necessarily implies, 1st, The stoppage of the passenger until he shall pay the toll; 2d, His trial and punishment, if he should, either by force or by fraud, evade, or attempt to evade, its payment; 3d, A discretionary power as to the amount of toll; 4th, The trial and punishment of persons who may wilfully injure the road, or violate the police established upon it. These powers are necessarily implied. Without the exercise of them, you could not proceed with safety to collect the toll for a single day. Other powers will soon be exercised. If you compel passengers to pay toll, the power of protecting them whilst travelling along your road is almost a necessary incident. The sovereign, who receives the toll, ought naturally to possess the power of protecting him who pays it. To vest the power of demanding toll in one sovereign, and the protection of the traveller’s person in another, would be almost an absurdity. The Federal Government would probably, ere long, exercise the power of trying and punishing murders and robberies, and all other offences committed upon the road. To what jurisdiction would the trial and punishment of these offences necessarily belong? To the courts of the United States, and to them alone. In Ohio, in New York, in Virginia, and in Maryland, it has been determined that State courts, even if Congress should confer it, have no jurisdiction over any penal action, or criminal offence, against the laws of the United States. Even if these decisions were incorrect, still it has never been seriously contended that State courts were bound to take jurisdiction in such cases. It must be admitted, by all, that Congress have not the power to compel an execution of their criminal or penal laws by the courts of the States. This is sufficient for my argument. Even if the power existed, in State courts, they never ought, unless upon extraordinary occasions, to try and to punish offences committed against the United States. The peace and the harmony of the people of this country require that the powers of the two governments should never be blended. The dividing line between their separate jurisdictions should be clearly marked; otherwise dangerous collisions between them must be the inevitable consequence. In two of the States through which this road passes, it has already been determined that their courts cannot take jurisdiction over offences committed against the laws of Congress. What, then, is the inevitable consequence? All the penal enactments of this bill, or of the future bills which it will become necessary to pass to supply its defects, must be carried into execution by the Federal courts. Any citizen of the United States, charged with the most trifling offence against the police of this road, must be dragged for trial to the Federal court of that State within whose jurisdiction it is alleged to have been committed. If committed in Maryland, the trial must take place in Baltimore; if in Pennsylvania, at Clarksburg.

86The distance of one hundred or two hundred miles, which he would be compelled to travel to take his trial, and the expenses which he must necessarily incur, would, in themselves, be a severe punishment for a more aggravated offence. Besides, the people of the neighborhood would be harassed in attending as witnesses at such a great distance from their places of abode. These, and many other inconveniences, which I shall not enumerate, would soon compel Congress to authorize the appointment of justices of the peace, or some other inferior tribunals, along the whole extent of the Cumberland Road.

Can any man lay his hand upon his heart and say that, in his conscience, he believes the Federal Constitution ever intended to bestow such powers on Congress? The great divisions of power, distinctly marked in that instrument, are external and internal. The first are conferred upon the General Government—the last, with but few exceptions, and those distinctly defined, remain in possession of the States. It never—never was intended that the vast and mighty machinery of this Government should be introduced into the domestic, the local, the interior concerns of the States, or that it should spend its power in collecting toll at a turnpike gate. I have not been presenting possible cases to the committee. I have confined myself to what must be the necessary effects of the passage of the bill now before us. By what authority is such a tremendous power claimed? That it is not expressly given by the Constitution, is certain. If it exists at all, it must, therefore, be incidental to some express power; and in the language of the Constitution, “be necessary and proper for carrying that power into execution.” From the very nature of incidental power, it cannot transcend the specific power which calls it into existence. The stream cannot flow higher than its fountain. This principle applies, with peculiar force, to the construction of the Constitution. For the purpose of carrying into effect any of its specific powers, it would be absurd to contend that you might exercise another power, greater and more dangerous than that expressly given. The means must be subordinate to the end. Were any other construction to prevail, this Government would no longer be one of limited powers.

The present case affords a striking and forcible illustration of this principle. Let it be granted that you have a right, as proprietor, by the permission of the States, to make a road through their territories, can it ever follow, as an incident to this mere power of appropriating the public money, that you may exercise jurisdiction over this very road, as a sovereign? If you could, the incident is as much greater than the principal, as sovereign is superior to individual power. It does follow that you can keep the road in repair, by appropriations, in the same manner that you have made it; but this is the utmost limit of your power. What, Sir? Exclusive jurisdiction over the road, for its preservation, and for the punishment of all offenders who travel upon it, and that as an incident to the mere power of expending your money upon its construction! The idea is absurd.

Under the power given to Congress “to establish post offices and post 87roads,” the Federal Government possess the undoubted right of converting any road already constructed, within any State of this Union, into a post road.

Let it also be granted, for the sake of the argument, that they possess the power, independently of the will of the States, to construct as many post roads throughout the Union as they think proper, and to keep them in repair; does it follow that they can establish toll-gates upon such roads? Certainly not. What is the nature of the powder conferred upon Congress? It is a mere right to carry and to protect the mails. It is confined to a single purpose—to the transportation of the mail, and the punishment of offences which violate that right. This is the sole object of the power—the sole purpose for which it was called into existence. Over some post roads, the mail is carried once per day, and over others once per week. With what justice can it be contended that this right of passage for a single purpose—this occasional use of the roads within the different States for post roads—vests in Congress the power of closing up these roads against all the citizens of those States, at all times, until they have paid such a toll as we think proper to impose. Let me present the naked argument of gentlemen before their own eyes. Congress have the right, under the Constitution, “to establish post offices and post roads.” As an incident they possess the power of constructing post roads. As another incident to this right of passage for a single purpose they possess the power to assume jurisdiction over all post roads in the different States, and prevent any person from passing over them, unless upon such terms as they may prescribe. This would, indeed, be construction construed. I would like the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Mercer) to furnish the committee with an answer to this argument. If I were to grant to that gentleman a right of passage, for a particular purpose only, over a road which belonged to me, what would be my surprise and my indignation, were he to shut it up, by the erection of toll-gates, and prohibited me from passing unless I paid him toll.

Should Congress act upon the precedent which the passage of this bill would establish, it is impossible to foresee the dangers which must follow, to the States and to the people of this country. Upon this branch of the question, permit me to quote the language of Mr. Monroe, in his celebrated message of May, 1822, denying the constitutional power of Congress to erect toll-gates on the Cumberland Road. “If,” said he, “the United States possessed the power contended for under this grant, might they not, on adopting the roads of the individual States for the carriage of the mail, as has been done, assume jurisdiction over them, and preclude a right to interfere with, or alter them? Might they not establish turnpikes, and exercise all the other acts of sovereignty above stated, over such roads, necessary to protect them from injury, and defray the expense of repairing them? Surely, if the right exists, these consequences necessarily followed, as soon as the road was established. The absurdity of such a pretension must be apparent to all who examine it. In this way, a large portion of the territory of every State might be taken 88from it; for there is scarcely a road in any State which will not be used for the transportation of the mail. A new field for legislation and internal government would thus be opened.” Arguments of the same nature would apply with equal, if not greater force, to those roads which might be used by the United States for the transportation of military stores, or as the medium of commerce between the different States. I shall not now enlarge upon this branch of the subject, believing it, as I do, to be wholly unnecessary.

There is another view of this subject, which I deem to be conclusive. The Constitution of the United States provides that “Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise the like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings.” This is the only clause in the Constitution which authorizes the Federal Government to acquire jurisdiction over any portion of the territory of the States; and this power is expressly confined to such forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings, as the States may consider necessary for the defence of the country. You will thus, Sir, perceive with what jealousy our ancestors conferred jurisdiction upon this Government—even over such places as were absolutely necessary for the exercise of the power of war. This power,—which is the power of self-defence—of self-preservation—the power given to this Government of wielding the whole physical force of the country for the preservation of its existence and its liberties—does not confer any implied jurisdiction over the smallest portion of territory. An express authority is given to acquire jurisdiction, for military and for naval purposes, and for them alone, with the consent of the States. Unless that consent has been first obtained, the vast power of war confers no incidental jurisdiction, even over the cannon in your national fortifications. How, then, can it be contended, with the least hope of success, that the same Constitution, which thus expressly limits our power of acquiring jurisdiction, to particular spots, necessary for the purpose of national defence, should, by implication, as an incident to the power to establish post offices and post roads, authorize us to assume jurisdiction over a road one hundred and thirty miles in length, and over all the other post roads in the country. If this construction be correct, all the limitations upon Federal power, contained in the Constitution, are idle and vain. There is no power which this Government shall ever wish to usurp, which cannot, by ingenuity, be found lurking in some of the express powers granted by the Constitution. In my humble judgment, the argument in favor of the constructive power to pass the sedition law is much more plausible than any that can be urged by the advocates of this bill, in favor of its passage. I beg gentlemen to reflect, before they vote in its favor.

I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Vance) for having reminded me of the resolution passed by the Legislature of Pennsylvania, at their last session, 89which authorizes the Federal Government to erect toll-gates upon this road, within that Commonwealth; to “enforce the collection of tolls, and, generally, to do and perform any and every other act and thing which may be deemed necessary, to ensure the permanent repair and preservation of the said road.”

I feel the most unfeigned respect for the Legislature of my native State. Their deliberate opinion, upon any subject, will always have a powerful influence over my judgment. It is fairly entitled to as much consideration as the opinion of this or any other legislative body in the Union. This resolution, however, was adopted, as I have been informed, without much deliberation and without debate. It owes its passage to the anxious desire which that body feel to preserve the Cumberland Road from ruin. The constitutional question was not brought into discussion. Had it been fairly submitted to that Republican Legislature, I most solemnly believe they would have been the last in this Union to sanction the assumption, by this Government, of a jurisdiction so ultra-Federal in its nature, and so well calculated to destroy the rights of the States.

But this resolution can have no influence upon the present discussion. The people of the State of Pennsylvania never conferred upon their Legislature the power to cede jurisdiction over any portion of their territory to the United States, or to any other sovereign. If the Legislatures of the different States could exercise such a power, the road to consolidation would be direct. If they can cede jurisdiction to this Government over any portion of their territories, they can cede the whole, and thus altogether destroy the Federal system.

Even if the States possessed the power to cede, the United States have no power to accept such cessions. Their authority to accept cessions of jurisdiction is confined to places “for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings.” Mr. Monroe, in the message to which I have already referred, declares his opinion “that Congress do not possess this power; that the States, individually, cannot grant it; for, although they may assent to the appropriation of money, within their limits, for such purposes, they can grant no power of jurisdiction, or sovereignty, by special compacts with the United States.”

I think it is thus rendered abundantly clear that, if Congress do not possess the power, under the Federal Constitution, to pass this bill, the States through which the road passes cannot confer it upon them. I feel convinced that even the gentleman who reported this bill (Mr. Mercer) will not contend that the resolution of the Legislature of Pennsylvania could bestow any jurisdiction upon the Government. I am justified in this reference, because that resolution is, in its nature, conditional, and requires that the amount of tolls collected in Pennsylvania shall be applied, exclusively, to the repair of the road within that State; and the present bill contains no provision to carry this condition into effect. The gentleman cannot, therefore, derive his authority to pass this bill from a grant the provisions of which he has disregarded.

90This question has already been settled, so far as a solemn legislative precedent can settle any question. During the session of 1821–2, a bill, similar in its provisions to the one now before the committee, passed both Houses of Congress. The vote, on its passage in this House, was eighty-seven in the affirmative, and sixty-eight in the negative. Mr. Monroe, then President of the United States, returned this bill to the House of Representatives, with his objections. So powerful, and so convincing, were his arguments, that, upon its reconsideration, but sixty-eight members voted in the affirmative, whilst seventy-two voted in the negative. Thus, Sir, you perceive, that this House have already solemnly declared, in accordance with the deliberate opinion of the late President of the United States, that Congress do not possess the power to erect toll-gates upon the Cumberland Road. That distinguished individual was the last of the race of Revolutionary Presidents, and, from the soundness of his judgment and the elevated stations which he has occupied, his opinion is entitled to the utmost respect. He was an actor in many of the political scenes of that day when the Constitution was framed, and when it went into operation, under the auspices of Washington—“all which he saw, and part of which he was.” He is, therefore, one of the few surviving statesmen who, from actual knowledge, can inform the present generation what were the opinions of the past. The solemnity and the ability with which he has resisted the exercise of the power of Congress to pass this bill prove, conclusively, the great importance which he attached to the subject.

During that session, I first had the honor of a seat in this House; I voted for the passage of that bill. I had not reflected upon the constitutional question, and I was an advocate of the policy of keeping the road in repair by collecting tolls from those who travelled upon it. After I read the constitutional objections of Mr. Monroe my opinion was changed, and I have ever since been endeavoring, upon all proper occasions, to atone for my vote, by advocating a cession of the road to the respective States through which it passes, that they may erect toll-gates upon it and keep it in repair.

There was a time in the history of this country—I refer to the days of the first President of the United States—when the Government was feeble, and when, in addition to its own powers, the weight of his personal character was necessary fairly to put it in motion. Jealousy of Federal power was then the order of the day. The gulf of consolidation then yawned before the imagination of many of our wisest and best patriots, ready to swallow up the rights of the States and the liberties of the people. In those days, this vast machine had scarcely got into regular motion. Its power and its patronage were then in their infancy, and there was, perhaps, more danger that the jealousy of the States should destroy efficiency of the Federal Government than that it should crush their power. Times have changed. The days of its feebleness and of childhood have passed away. It is now a giant—a Briareus—stretching forth its hundred arms, dispensing its patronage, and increasing its power over every portion of the Union. What patronage and what 91power have the States to oppose to this increasing influence? Glance your eye over the extent of the Union; compare State offices with those of the United States; and whether avarice or ambition be consulted, those which belong to the General Government are greatly to be preferred to the offices which the States can bestow. Jealousy of Federal power—not of a narrow and mean character, but a watchful and uncompromising jealousy—is now the dictate of the soundest patriotism. The General Government possesses the exclusive right to impose duties upon imports—by far the most productive and the most popular source of revenue. United and powerful efforts are now making to destroy the revenue which the States derive from sales at auction. This Government is now asked to interpose its power between the buyer and seller, and put down public sales of merchandise within the different States—a subject heretofore believed to be within the exclusive jurisdictionjurisdiction of the State sovereignties. Whilst the Federal Government has been advancing with rapid strides, the people of the States have seldom been awakened to a sense of their danger. In the late political struggle, they were aroused, and they nobly maintained their own rights. This, I trust, will always be the case hereafter. Thank Heaven! whilst the people continue true to themselves, the Constitution contains within itself those principles which must ever preserve it. From its very nature—from a difference of opinion as to the constructive powers which may be necessary and proper to carry those which are enumerated into effect—it must ever call into existence two parties, the one jealous of Federal, the other of State power; the one anxious to extend Federal influence, the other wedded to State rights; the one desirous to limit, the other to extend, the power and the patronage of the General Government. In the intermediate space there will be much debatable ground; but a general outline will still remain sufficiently distinct to mark the division between the political parties which have divided, and which will probably continue to divide, the people of this country. Jealousy of Federal power had long been slumbering. The voice of Virginia sounding the alarm has at length awakened several of her sister States; and, although they believe her to be too strict in her construction of the Constitution and her doctrines concerning State rights, yet, they are now willing to do justice to the steadiness and patriotism of her political character. She has kept alive a wholesome jealousy of Federal power. If, then, there be a party in this country friendly to the rights of the States and of the people, I call upon them to oppose the passage of this bill. Should it become a law, it will establish a precedent under the authority of which the sovereign power of this Government can be brought home into the domestic concerns of every State in the Union. We may then take under our own jurisdiction every road over which the mail is carried; every road over which our soldiers and warlike munitions may pass; and every road used for the purpose of carrying on commerce between the several States. Once establish this strained construction of the Federal Constitution, and I would ask gentlemen to point out the limit where this splendid government shall be compelled to stay its chariot wheels. Might it not then drive on to consolidation, under the sanction of the Constitution?

92Is there any necessity for venturing upon this dangerous and doubtful measure? I appeal to those gentlemen who suppose the power to be clear, what motive they can have for forcing this measure upon us, who are of a different opinion? Can it make any difference to them whether those toll-gates shall be erected under a law of the United States, or under State authority? Cannot the Legislature of Pennsylvania enact this bill into a law as well as the Congress of the United States? Nobody will doubt their right. I trust no gentleman upon this floor will question the fidelity of that State in complying with all her engagements. She has ever been true to every trust. If she should accept of the cession, as I have no doubt she would, I will pledge myself that you shall never again hear of the road, unless it be that she has kept it in good repair, and that under her care it has answered every purpose for which it was intended.

I know that some popular feeling has been excited against myself in that portion of Pennsylvania though which the road passes. I have been represented as one of its greatest enemies. I now take occasion thus publicly to deny this allegation. It is true that I cannot vote in favor of the passage of this bill, and thus, in my judgment, violate the oath which I have taken to support the Constitution of the United States. No man can expect this from me. But it is equally true that I have heretofore supported appropriations for the repair of this road; and should my amendment prevail, I shall vote in favor of the appropriation of one hundred thousand dollars for that purpose which is contained in this bill.

At a late period in the second session of this Congress, February 6, 1829, a resolution was introduced by Mr. Smyth of Virginia, proposing to amend the Constitution so as to make every President ineligible to the office a second time. Whether this was aimed at General Jackson, who had been elected President in the autumn of 1828, and was to be inaugurated in about thirty days, or whether it had no special object, it was generally regarded as a subject for the discussion of which the remaining time of this Congress was entirely insufficient. Upon a motion to postpone the resolution to the 3d of March, Mr. Buchanan said:

He should vote in favor of the postponement of this resolution until the 3d of March. He did not think that the great constitutional question which it presented ought to be decided, without more time and more reflection than it would be possible to bestow upon it at this late period of the session. We had heard the able and ingenious argument of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Smyth) in favor of the proposition, whilst no argument had been urged upon the other side of the question. He said that a more important question could not be presented in a republic, than a proposition to change 93the Constitution in regard to the election of the Supreme Executive Magistrate. “It is better to bear the ills we have, than fly to others that we know not of,” unless the existing evils are great, and we have a moral certainty that the change will not be productive of still greater evils. The Constitution has been once changed since its adoption, and it is now generally admitted that the alteration was for the worse, and not for the better. This change grew out of the excitement of the moment. It provided against the existence of an evil which, probably, would not again have occurred for a long period of time; but in doing so, it has rendered it almost certain that the election of a President shall often devolve upon the House of Representatives. Had the Constitution remained in its original form; had each elector continued to vote for two persons, instead of one; it could rarely, if ever, have occurred that some one candidate would not have received a majority of all the electoral votes. By this change, we have thus entailed a great evil upon the country.

The example of Washington, which has been followed by Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, has forever determined that no President shall be more than once re-elected. This principle is now become as sacred as if it were written in the Constitution. I would incline to leave to the people of the United States, without incorporating it in the Constitution, to decide whether a President should serve longer than one term. The day may come, when dangers shall lower over us, and when we may have a President at the helm of State who possesses the confidence of the country, and is better able to weather the storm than any other pilot; shall we, then, under such circumstances, deprive the people of the United States of the power of obtaining his services for a second term? Shall we pass a decree, as fixed as fate, to bind the American people, and prevent them from ever re-electing such a man? I am not afraid to trust them with this power.

There is another reason why the House should not be called upon to decide this question hastily. It is a great evil to keep the public mind excited, as it would be, by the election of a new President at the end of each term of four years. Under the existing system, it is probable that, as a general rule, a President, elected by the people, will once be re-elected, unless he shall by his conduct have deprived himself of public confidence. This will, in many instances, prevent the recurrence of a political storm more than once in eight years. These are some of the suggestions which induce me to vote for the postponement of this resolution to a day that will render it impossible for us to act upon it during the present session of Congress. We ought to have ample time to consider this subject before we act.

THE FIRST ELECTION OF GENERAL JACKSON—BUCHANAN AGAIN ELECTED TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—HE BECOMES CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE—IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE PECK—BUCHANAN DEFEATS A REPEAL OF THE 25TH SECTION OF THE JUDICIARY ACT—PROPOSED IN PENNSYLVANIA AS A CANDIDATE FOR THE VICE-PRESIDENCY—WISHES TO RETIRE FROM PUBLIC LIFE—FITNESS FOR GREAT SUCCESS AT THE BAR.

General Jackson was elected President of the United States in the autumn of 1828, by a majority of forty-eight electoral votes over Mr. John Quincy Adams, and was inaugurated March 4, 1829. Mr. Calhoun became Vice-President by a majority of forty-one electoral votes. Mr. Buchanan had entered into the popular canvass in favor of General Jackson with much zeal and activity. His efforts to secure for the General the popular vote of Pennsylvania, which were begun in the summer of 1827, were in danger of being embarrassed at that time by the General’s misconception of the purpose of Mr. Buchanan’s interview with him, which took place in 1824, while the election of a President was pending in the House of Representatives. But Mr. Buchanan conducted himself in that matter with so much discretion and forbearance that his influence with General Jackson’s Pennsylvania friends was not seriously impaired. When the canvass of 1828 came on, he was in a position to be regarded as one of the most efficient political supporters of General Jackson in the State; and indeed it was mainly through his influence that the whole of her twenty-eight electoral votes was secured for the candidate whose election he desired. Yet this commanding position did not lead him to expect office of any kind in the new administration, nor does he appear to have desired any. He was 95re-elected to his old seat in Congress, and was in attendance at the opening of the first session of the 21st Congress in December, 1829. He now became Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the House, and as such had very weighty duties to perform.

One of the first of these duties, and one that he discharged with signal ability, required him to introduce and advocate a bill to amend and extend the judicial system of the United States, by including in the circuit court system the States of Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama, and Missouri, which had hitherto had only district courts, and by increasing the number of judges of the Supreme Court to nine. Mr. Buchanan’s speech in explanation of this measure, delivered January 14, 1830, was as important a one as has been made upon the subject. The measure which he advocated was not adopted at that time; but his speech may be resorted to at all times for its valuable discussion of a question that has not yet lost its interest,—the question of releasing the judges of the Supreme Court entirely from the performance of circuit duties. Until I read this speech, I was not aware how wisely and comprehensively Mr. Buchanan could deal with such a question. The following passages seem to me to justify a very high estimate of his powers, as they certainly contain much wisdom:

Having thus given a hasty sketch of the history of the Judiciary of the United States, and of the jurisdiction of the circuit courts which this bill proposes to extend to the six new States of the Union, I shall now proceed to present the views of the Committee on the Judiciary in relation to this important subject. In doing this, I feel that, before I can expect the passage of the bill, I must satisfy the committee, first, that such a change or modification of the present judiciary system ought to be adopted, as will place the Western States on an equal footing with the other States of the Union; and, second, that the present bill contains the best provisions which, under all the circumstances, can be devised for accomplishing this purpose.

And first, in regard to the States of Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. It may be said that the existing law has already established circuit courts in these three States, and why then should they complain? In answer to this question, I ask gentlemen to look at a map of the United States, and examine the extent of this circuit. The distance which the judge is compelled to travel, by land, for the purpose of attending the different circuit courts, is, of itself, almost sufficient, in a few years, to destroy any common constitution. 96From Columbus, in Ohio, he proceeds to Frankfort, in Kentucky; from Frankfort to Nashville; and from Nashville, across the Cumberland mountain, to Knoxville. When we reflect that, in addition to his attendance of the courts in each of these States, twice in the year, he is obliged annually to attend the Supreme Court in Washington, we must all admit that his labors are very severe.

This circuit is not only too extensive, but there is a great press of judicial business in each of the States of which it is composed. In addition to the ordinary sources of litigation for the circuit courts throughout the Union, particular causes have existed for its extraordinary accumulation in each of these States. It will be recollected that, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, the circuit courts may try land causes between citizens of the same State, provided they claim under grants from different States. In Tennessee, grants under that State and the State of North Carolina, for the same land, often come into conflict in the circuit court. The interfering grants of Virginia and Kentucky are a fruitful source of business for the circuit court of Kentucky. These causes, from their very nature, are difficult and important, and must occupy much time and attention. Within the Virginia military district of Ohio, there are also many disputed land titles.

Another cause has contributed much to swell the business of the circuit court of Kentucky. The want of confidence of the citizens of other States in the judicial tribunals of that State, has greatly added to the number of suits in the circuit court. Many plaintiff’s, who could, with greater expedition, have recovered their demands in the courts of the State, were compelled, by the impolitic acts of the State Legislature, to resort to the courts of the United States. Whilst these laws were enforced by the State courts, they were disregarded by those of the Union. In making these remarks, I am confident no representative from that patriotic State will mistake my meaning. I rejoice that the difficulties are now at an end, and that the people of Kentucky have discovered the ruinous policy of interposing the arm of the law to shield a debtor from the just demands of his creditor. That gallant and chivalrous people, who possess a finer soil and a finer climate than any other State of the Union, will now, I trust, improve and enjoy the bounties which nature has bestowed upon them with a lavish hand. As their experience has been severe, I trust their reformation will be complete. Still, however, many of the causes which originated in past years, are yet depending in the circuit court of that State.

In 1826, when a similar bill was before this House, we had the most authentic information that there were nine hundred and fifty causes then pending in the circuit court of Kentucky, one hundred and sixty in the circuit court for the western district, and about the same number in that for the eastern district of Tennessee, and upwards of two hundred in Ohio. Upon that occasion, a memorial was presented from the bar of Nashville, signed by G. W. Campbell as chairman, and Felix Grundy, at present a Senator of the United States, as secretary. These gentlemen are both well known to this 97House, and to the country. That memorial declares that “the seventh circuit, consisting of Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, is too large for the duties of it to be devolved on one man; and it was absolutely impossible for the judge assigned to this circuit to fulfil the letter of the law designating his duties.”duties.” Such has been the delay of justice in the State of Tennessee, “that some of the important causes now pending in their circuit courts are older than the professional career of almost every man at the bar.”

The number of causes depending in the seventh circuit, I am informed, has been somewhat reduced since 1826; but still the evil is great, and demands a remedy. If it were possible for one man to transact the judicial business of that circuit, I should have as much confidence that it would be accomplished by the justice of the Supreme Court to which it is assigned, as by any other judge in the Union. His ability and his perseverance are well known to the nation. The labor, however, both of body and mind, is too great for any individual.

Has not the delay of justice in this circuit almost amounted to its denial? Are the States which compose it placed upon the same footing, in this respect, with other States of the Union? Have they not a right to complain? Many evils follow in the train of tardy justice. It deranges the whole business of society. It tempts the dishonest and the needy to set up unjust and fraudulent defences against the payment of just debts, knowing that the day of trial is far distant. It thus ruins the honest creditor, by depriving him of the funds which he had a right to expect at or near the appointed time of payment; and it ultimately tends to destroy all confidence between man and man.

A greater curse can scarcely be inflicted upon the people of any State, than to have their land titles unsettled. What, then, must be the condition of Tennessee, where there are many disputed land titles, when we are informed, by undoubted authority, “that some of the important causes now pending in their circuit courts are older than the professional career of almost every man at the bar.” Instead of being astonished at the complaints of the people of this circuit, I am astonished at their forbearance. A judiciary, able and willing to compel men to perform their contracts, and to decide their controversies, is one of the greatest political blessings which any people can enjoy; and it is one which the people of this country have a right to expect from their Government. The present bill proposes to accomplish this object, by creating a new circuit out of the States of Kentucky and Tennessee. This circuit will afford sufficient employment for one justice of the Supreme Court.

Without insisting further upon the propriety, nay, the necessity, of organizing the circuit courts of Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, in such a manner as to enable them to transact the business of the people, I shall now proceed to consider the situation of the six new States, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama, and Missouri. Their grievances are of a different character. They do not so much complain of the delay of justice, as 98that Congress has so long refused to extend to them the circuit court system, as it exists in all the other States. As they successively came into the Union, they were each provided with a district court and a district judge, possessing circuit court powers. The acts which introduced them into our political family declare that they shall “be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatever.” I do not mean to contend that by virtue of these acts we were bound immediately to extend to them the circuit court system. Such has not been the practice of Congress, in regard to other States in a similar situation. I contend, however, that these acts do impose an obligation upon us to place them “on an equal footing with the original States,” in regard to the judiciary, as soon as their wants require it, and the circumstances of the country permit it to be done. That time has, in my opinion, arrived. Louisiana has now been nearly eighteen years a member of the Union, and is one of our most commercial States; and yet, until this day, she has been without a circuit court. It is more than thirteen years since Indiana was admitted; and even our youngest sister, Missouri, will soon have been nine years in the family. Why should not these six States be admitted to the same judicial privileges which all the others now enjoy? Even if there were no better reason, they have a right to demand it for the mere sake of uniformity. I admit this is an argument dictated by State pride; but is not that a noble feeling? Is it not a feeling which will ever characterize freemen? Have they not a right to say to us, if the circuit court system be good for you, it will be good for us? You have no right to exclusive privileges. If you are sovereign States, so are we. By the terms of our admission, we are perfectly your equals. We have long submitted to the want of this system, from deference to your judgment; but the day has now arrived when we demand it from you as our right. But there are several other good reasons why the system ought to be extended to these States. And, in the first place, the justices of the Supreme Court are selected from the very highest order of the profession. There is scarcely a lawyer in the United States who would not be proud of an elevation to that bench. A man ambitious of honest fame ought not to desire a more exalted theatre for the display of ability and usefulness. Besides, the salary annexed to this office is sufficient to command the best talents of the country. I ask you, sir, is it not a serious grievance for those States to be deprived of the services of such a man in their courts? I ask you whether it is equal justice, that whilst, in eighteen States of the Union, no man can be deprived of his life, his liberty, or his property, by the judgment of a circuit court, without the concurrence of two judges, and one of them a justice of the Supreme Court, in the remaining six the fate of the citizen is determined by the decision of a single district judge? Who are, generally speaking, these district judges? In asking this question, I mean to treat them with no disrespect. They receive but small salaries, and their sphere of action is confined to their own particular districts. There is nothing either in the salary or in the station which would induce a distinguished lawyer, 99unless under peculiar circumstances, to accept the appointment. And yet the judgment of this individual, in six States of the Union, is final and conclusive, in all cases of law, of equity, and of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, wherein the amount of the controversy does not exceed two thousand dollars. Nay, the grievance is incomparably greater. His opinion in all criminal cases, no matter how aggravated may be their nature, is final and conclusive. A citizen of these States may be deprived of his life, or of his character, which ought to be dearer than life, by the sentence of a district judge; against which there is no redress, and from which there can be no appeal.

There is another point of view in which the inequality and injustice of the present system, in the new States, is very striking. In order to produce a final decision, both the judges of a circuit court must concur. If they be divided in opinion, the point of difference is certified to the Supreme Court, for their decision; and this, whether the amount in controversy be great or small. The same rule applies to criminal cases. In such a court, no man can be deprived of life, of liberty, or of property, by a criminal prosecution, without the clear opinion of the two judges that his conviction is sanctioned by the laws of the land. If the question be doubtful or important, or if it be one of the first impression, the judges, even when they do not really differ, often agree to divide, pro forma, so that the point may be solemnly argued and decided in the Supreme Court. Thus, the citizen of every State in which a circuit court exists, has a shield of protection cast over him, of which he cannot be deprived, without the deliberate opinion of two judges; whilst the district judge of the six new Western States must alone finally decide every criminal question, and every civil controversy in which the amount in dispute does not exceed two thousand dollars.

In the eastern district of Louisiana, the causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction decided by the district court must be numerous and important. If a circuit court were established for that State, a party who considered himself aggrieved might appeal to it from the district court in every case in which the amount in controversy exceeded fifty dollars. At present there is no appeal, unless the value of the controversy exceeds two thousand dollars; and then it must be made directly to the Supreme Court, a tribunal so far remote from the city of New Orleans, as to deter suitors from availing themselves of this privilege.

I shall not further exhaust the patience of the committee on this branch of the subject. I flatter myself that I have demonstrated the necessity for such an alteration of the existing laws as will confer upon the people of Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, and of the six new Western States, the same benefits from the judiciary, as those which the people of the other States now enjoy.

The great question, then, which remains for discussion is, does the present bill present the best plan for accomplishing this purpose, which, under all circumstances, can be devised? It is incumbent upon me to sustain the affirmative 100of this proposition. There have been but two plans proposed to the Committee on the Judiciary, and but two can be proposed, with the least hope of success. The one an extension of the present system, which the bill now before the committee contemplates, and the other a resort to the system which was adopted in the days of the elder Adams, of detaching the justices of the Supreme Court from the performance of circuit duties, and appointing circuit judges to take their places. After much reflection upon this subject I do not think that the two systems can be compared, without producing a conviction in favor of that which has long been established. The system of detaching the judges of the Supreme Court from the circuits has been already tried, and it has already met the decided hostility of the people of this country. No act passed during the stormy and turbulent administration of the elder Adams, which excited more general indignation among the people. The courts which it established were then, and have been ever since, branded with the name of the “midnight judiciary.” I am far from being one of those who believe the people to be infallible. They are often deceived by the arts of demagogues; but this deception endures only for a season. They are always honest, and possess much sagacity. If, therefore, they get wrong, it is almost certain they will speedily return to correct opinions. They have long since done justice to other acts of that administration, which at the time they condemned; but the feeling against the judiciary established under it remains the same. Indeed, many now condemn that system, who were formerly its advocates. In 1826, when a bill, similar in its provisions to the bill now before the committee, was under discussion in this House, a motion was made by a gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Mercer] to recommit it to the Committee on the Judiciary, with an instruction so to amend it, as to discharge the judges of the Supreme Court from attendance on the circuit courts, and to provide a uniform system for the administration of justice in the inferior courts of the United States. Although this motion was sustained with zeal and eloquence and ability by the mover, and by several other gentlemen, yet, when it came to the vote, it was placed in a lean minority, and, I believe, was negatived without a division. It is morally certain that such a bill could not now be carried. It would, therefore, have been vain and idle in the Committee on the Judiciary to have reported such a bill. If the Western States should be doomed to wait for a redress of their grievances, until public opinion shall change upon this subject, it will, probably, be a long time before they will obtain relief.

But, Sir, there are most powerful reasons for believing that public opinion upon this subject is correct. What would be the natural consequences of detaching the judges of the Supreme Court from circuit duties? It would bring them and their families from the circuits in which they now reside; and this city would become their permanent residence. They would naturally come here; because here, and nowhere else, would they then have official business to transact. What would be the probable effect of such a change of residence? The tendency of everything within the ten miles square is 101towards the Executive of the Union. He is here the centre of attraction. No matter what political revolutions may take place, no matter who may be up or who may be down, the proposition is equally true. Human nature is not changed under a Republican Government. We find that citizens of a republic are worshippers of power, as well as the subjects of a monarchy. Would you think it wise to bring the justices of the Supreme Court from their residence in the States, where they breathe the pure air of the country, and assemble them here within the very vortex of Executive influence? Instead of being independent judges, scattered over the surface of the Union, their feelings identified with the States of which they are citizens, is there no danger that, in the lapse of time, you would convert them into minions of the Executive? I am far, very far, from supposing that any man, who either is or who will be a justice of the Supreme Court, could be actually corrupted; but if you place them in a situation where they or their relatives would naturally become candidates for Executive patronage, you place them, in some degree, under the control of Executive influence. If there should now exist any just cause for the complaints against the Supreme Court, that in their decisions they are partial to Federal rather than to State authority (and I do not say that there is), that which at present may be but an imaginary fear might soon become a substantial reality. I would place them beyond the reach of temptation. I would suffer them to remain, as they are at present, citizens of their respective States, visiting this city annually to discharge their high duties, as members of the Supreme Court. This single view of the subject, if there were no other, ought, in my judgment, to be conclusive.

Let us now suppose, for the sake of the argument, that the withdrawal of the justices of the Supreme Court from their circuit duties, and their residence in this city, would produce no such effects, as I apprehend, upon the judges themselves; what would be the probable effect upon public opinion? It has been said, and wisely said, that the first object of every judicial tribunal ought to be to do justice; the second, to satisfy the people that justice has been done. It is of the utmost importance in this country that the judges of the Supreme Court should possess the confidence of the public. This they now do in an eminent degree. How have they acquired it? By travelling over their circuits, and personally showing themselves to the people of the country, in the able and honest discharge of their high duties, and by their extensive intercourse with the members of the profession on the circuits in each State, who, after all, are the best judges of judicial merit, and whose opinions upon this subject have a powerful influence upon the community. Elevated above the storms of faction and of party which have sometimes lowered over us, like the sun, they have pursued their steady course, unawed by threats, unseduced by flattery. They have thus acquired that public confidence which never fails to follow the performance of great and good actions, when brought home to the personal observation of the people.

Would they continue to enjoy this extensive public confidence, should they no longer be seen by the people of the States, in the discharge of their high 102and important duties, but be confined, in the exercise of them, to the gloomy and vaulted apartment which they now occupy in this Capitol? Would they not be considered as a distant and dangerous tribunal? Would the people, when excited by strong feeling, patiently submit to have the most solemn acts of their State Legislatures swept from the statute-book, by the decision of judges whom they never saw, and whom they had been taught to consider with jealousy and suspicion? At present, even in those States where their decisions have been most violently opposed, the highest respect has been felt for the judges by whom they were pronounced, because the people have had an opportunity of personally knowing that they were both great and good men. Look at the illustrious individual who is now the Chief Justice of the United States. His decisions upon constitutional questions have ever been hostile to the opinions of a vast majority of the people of his own State; and yet with what respect and veneration has he been viewed by Virginia? Is there a Virginian, whose heart does not beat with honest pride when the just fame of the Chief Justice is the subject of conversation? They consider him, as he truly is, one of the greatest and best men which this country has ever produced. Think ye that such would have been the case, had he been confined to the city of Washington, and never known to the people, except in pronouncing judgments in this Capitol, annulling their State laws, and calculated to humble their State pride? Whilst I continue to be a member of this House, I shall never incur the odium of giving a vote for any change in the judiciary system the effect of which would, in my opinion, diminish the respect in which the Supreme Court is now held by the people of this country.

The judges whom you would appoint to perform the circuit duties, if able and honest men, would soon take the place which the judges of the Supreme Court now occupy in the affections of the people; and the reversal of their judgments, when they happened to be in accordance with strong public feeling, would naturally increase the mass of discontent against the Supreme Court.

There are other reasons, equally powerful, against the withdrawal of the judges from the circuits. What effect would such a measure probably produce upon the ability of the judges themselves to perform their duties? Would it not be very unfortunate?

No judges upon earth ever had such various and important duties to perform, as the justices of the Supreme Court. In England, whence we have derived our laws, they have distinct courts of equity, courts of common law, courts of admiralty, and courts in which the civil law is administered. In each of these courts, they have distinct judges; and perfection in any of these branches is certain to be rewarded by the honors of that country. The judges of our Supreme Court, both on their circuits and in banc, are called upon to adjudicate on all these codes. But this is not all. Our Union consists of twenty-four sovereign States, in all of which there are different laws and peculiar customs. The common and equity law have thus been changed 103and inflected into a hundred different shapes, and adapted to the various wants and opinions of the different members of our confederacy. The judicial act of 1789 declares “that the laws of the several States, except where the Constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide,” shall be regarded as rules of decision in the courts of the United States. The justices of the Supreme Court ought, therefore, to be acquainted with the ever-varying codes of the different States.

There is still another branch of their jurisdiction, of a grand and imposing character, which places them far above the celebrated Amphictyonic council. The Constitution of the United States has made them the arbiters between conflicting sovereigns. They decide whether the sovereign power of the States has been exercised in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States; and, if this has not been done, they declare the laws of the State Legislatures to be void. Their decisions thus control the exercise of sovereign power. No tribunal ever existed, possessing the same, or even similar authority. Now, Sir, suppose you bring these judges to Washington, and employ them in banc but six weeks or two months in the year, is it not certain that they will gradually become less and less fit to decide upon these different codes, and that they will at length nearly lose all recollection of the peculiar local laws of the different States? Every judicial duty which each of them would then be required to perform, would be to prepare and deliver a few opinions annually in banc.

The judgment, like every other faculty of the mind, requires exercise to preserve its vigor. That judge who decides the most causes, is likely to decide them the best. He who is in the daily habit of applying general principles to the decision of cases, as they arise upon the circuits, is at the same time qualifying himself in the best manner for the duties of his station on the bench of the Supreme Court.

Is it probable that the long literary leisure of the judges in this city, during ten months of the year, would be devoted to searching the two hundred volumes of jarring decisions of State courts, or in studying the acts of twenty-four State Legislatures? The man must have a singular taste and a firm resolution who, in his closet, could travel over this barren waste. And even if he should, what would be the consequence? The truth is, such knowledge cannot be obtained; and after it has been acquired, it cannot be preserved, except by constant practice. There are subjects which, when the memory has once grasped, it retains forever. It has no such attachment for acts of Assembly, acts of Congress, and reports of adjudged cases, fixing their construction. This species of knowledge, under the present system, will always be possessed by the judges of the Supreme Court; because, in the performance of their circuit duties, they are placed in a situation in which it is daily expounded to them, and in which they are daily compelled to decide questions arising upon it. Change this system, make them exclusively judges of an appellate court, and you render it highly probable that their knowledge of the general principles of the laws of their country will become more and 104more faint, and that they will finally almost lose the recollection of the peculiar local systems of the different States. “Practice makes perfect,” is a maxim applicable to every pursuit in life. It applies with peculiar force to that of a judge. I think I might appeal for the truth of this position to the long experience of the distinguished gentleman from New York, now by my side (Mr. Spencer). A man, by study, may become a profound lawyer in theory, but nothing except practice can make him an able judge. I call upon every member of the profession in this House to say whether he does not feel himself to be a better lawyer at the end of a long term, than at the beginning. It is the circuit employment, imposed upon the judges of England and the United States, which has rendered them what they are. In my opinion, both the usefulness and the character of the Supreme Court depend much upon its continuance.

I now approach what I know will be urged as the greatest objection to the passage of this bill—that it will extend the number of the judges of the Supreme Court to nine. If the necessities of the country required that their number should be increased to ten, I would feel no objection to such a measure. The time has not yet arrived, however, when, in my opinion, such a necessity exists. Gentlemen, in considering this subject, ought to take those extended views which belong to statesmen. When we reflect upon the vast extent of our country, and the various systems of law under which the people of the different States are governed, I cannot conceive that nine or even ten judges are too great a number to compose our appellate tribunal. That number would afford a judicial representation upon the bench of each large portion of the Union. Not, Sir, a representation of sectional feelings or of the party excitements of the day, but of that peculiar species of legal knowledge necessary to adjudicate wisely upon the laws of the different States. For example, I ask what judge now upon the bench possesses, or can possess, a practical knowledge of the laws of Louisiana? Their system is so peculiar, that it is almost impossible for a man to decide correctly upon all cases arising under it, who has never been practically acquainted with the practice of their courts. Increase the number of judges to nine, and you will then have them scattered throughout all the various portions of the Union. The streams of legal knowledge peculiar to the different States will then flow to the bench of the Supreme Court as to a great reservoir, from whence they will be distributed throughout the Union. There will then always be sufficient local information upon the bench, if I may use the expression, to detect all the ingenious fallacies of the bar, and to enable them to decide correctly upon local questions. I admit, if the judges were confined to appellate duties alone, nine or ten would probably be too great a number. Then there might be danger that some of them would become mere nonentities, contenting themselves simply with voting aye or no in the majority or minority. There would then also be danger that the Executive might select inefficient men for this high station, who were his personal favorites, expecting their incapacity to be shielded from public observation by the splendid talents of 105some of the other judges upon the bench. Under the present system we have no such danger to apprehend. Each judge must now feel his own personal responsibility. He is obliged to preside in the courts throughout his circuit, and to bring home the law and the justice of his country to his fellow-citizens in each of the districts of which it is composed. Much is expected from a judge placed in his exalted station; and he must attain to the high standard of public opinion by which he is judged, or incur the reproach of holding an office to which he is not entitled. No man in any station in this country can place himself above public opinion.

Upon the subject of judicial appointments, public opinion has always been correct. No factious demagogue, no man, merely because he has sung hosannas to the powers that be, can arrive at the bench of the Supreme Court. The Executive himself will always be constrained by the force of public sentiment, whilst the present system continues, to select judges for that court from the ablest and best men of the circuit; and such has been the course which he has hitherto almost invariably pursued. Were he to pursue any other, he would inevitably incur popular odium. Under the existing system, there can be no danger in increasing the number of the judges to nine. But take them from their circuits, destroy their feeling of personal responsibility by removing them from the independent courts over which they now preside, and make them merely an appellate tribunal, and I admit there would be danger, not only of improper appointments, but that a portion of them, in the lapse of time, might become incompetent to discharge the duties of their station.

But, Sir, have we no examples of appellate courts consisting of a greater number than either nine or ten judges, which have been approved by experience? The Senate of the State of New York has always been their court of appeals; and, notwithstanding they changed their constitution a few years ago, so much were the people attached to this court, that it remains unchanged. In England, the twelve judges, in fact, compose the court of appeals. Whenever the House of Lords sits in a judicial character, they are summoned to attend, and their opinions are decisive of almost every question. I do not pretend to speak accurately, but I doubt whether the House of Lords have decided two cases, in opposition to the opinion of the judges, for the last fifty years. In England there is also the court of exchequer chamber, consisting of the twelve judges, and sometimes of the lord chancellor also, into which such causes may be adjourned from the three superior courts, as the judges find to be difficult of decision, before any judgment is given upon them in the court in which they originated. The court of exchequer chamber is also a court of appeals, in the strictest sense of the word, in many cases which I shall not take time to enumerate.

I cannot avoid believing that the prejudice which exists in the minds of some gentlemen, against increasing the number of the judges of the Supreme Court to nine, arises from the circumstance that the appellate courts of the different States generally consist of a fewer number. But is there not a 106striking difference between the cases? It does not follow that because four or five may be a sufficient number in a single State where one uniform system of laws prevails, nine or ten would be too many on the bench of the Supreme Court, which administers the laws of twenty-four States, and decides questions arising under all the codes in use in the civilized world. Indeed, if four or five judges be not too many for the court of appeals in a State, it is a strong argument that nine or ten are not too great a number for the court of appeals of the Union. Upon the whole, I ask, would it be wise in this committee, disregarding the voice of experience, to destroy a system which has worked well in practice for forty years, and resort to a dangerous and untried experiment, merely from a vague apprehension that nine judges will destroy the usefulness and character of that court, which has been raised by seven to its present exalted elevation.

It will, no doubt, be objected to this bill, as it has been upon a former occasion, that the present system cannot be permanent, and that, ere long, the judges of the Supreme Courts must, from necessity, be withdrawn from their circuits. To this objection there is a conclusive answer. We know that the system is now sufficient for the wants of the country, and let posterity provide for themselves. Let us not establish courts which are unnecessary in the present day, because we believe that hereafter they may be required to do the business of the country.

But, if it were necessary, I believe it might be demonstrated that ten justices of the Supreme Court will be sufficient to do all the judicial business of the country which is required of them under the present system, until the youngest member of this House shall be sleeping with his fathers. Six judges have done all the business of the States east of the Alleghany mountains, from the adoption of the Federal Constitution up till this day; and still their duties are not laborious. If it should be deemed proper by Congress, these fifteen Eastern States might be arranged into five circuits instead of six, upon the occurrence of the next vacancy in any of them, without the least inconvenience either to the judges or to the people; and thus it would be rendered unnecessary to increase the bench of the Supreme Court beyond nine, even after the admission of Michigan and Arkansas into the Union. The business of the Federal courts, except in a few States, will probably increase but little for a long time to come. One branch of it must, before many years, be entirely lopped away. I allude to the controversies between citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants from different States. This will greatly diminish their business both in Tennessee and Kentucky. Besides, the State tribunals will generally be preferred by aliens and by citizens of other States for the mere recovery of debts, on account of their superior expedition.

I should here close my remarks, if it were not necessary to direct the attention of the committee for a few minutes to the details of the bill. And here permit me to express my regret that my friend from Kentucky (Mr. Wickliffe) has thought proper to propose an amendment to add three, instead 107of two, judges to the Supreme Court. Had a majority of the Committee on the Judiciary believed ten judges, instead of nine, to be necessary, I should have yielded my opinion, as I did upon a former occasion, and given the bill my support in the House. This I should have done to prevent division among its friends, believing it to be a mere question of time: for ten will become necessary in a few years, unless the number of the Eastern circuits should be reduced to five.

Another important matter which devolved upon Mr. Buchanan as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, related to the impeachment of Judge James H. Peck, the United States district judge for the district of Missouri. The facts of this singular case were briefly these: Judge Peck had decided a land-cause against certain parties who were represented in his court by an attorney and counsellor named Lawless. Lawless published in a St. Louis newspaper some comments on the Judge’s opinion, by no means intemperate in their character. The Judge thereupon attached Lawless for a contempt, caused him to be imprisoned twenty-four hours in the common jail, and suspended him from practice for a period of eighteen months. Upon these facts, when brought before the House of Representatives by Lawless’ memorial, there could be but one action. The Judiciary Committee voted an impeachment of the Judge, and Mr. Buchanan reported their recommendation on the 23d of March, 1830. He said that the committee deemed it most fair towards the accused not to report at length their reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the Judge ought to be impeached, but that they thought it advisable to follow the precedent which had been established in the case of the impeachment of Judge Chase. A desultory discussion followed upon a motion to print the report and the documents, and upon an amendment to include the address which it seems that the Judge had been allowed to make to the committee. But before any vote was taken, the Speaker, on the 5th of April, presented a memorial from Judge Peck, praying the House to allow him to present a written exposition of the facts and law of the case, and to call witnesses to substantiate it, or else to vote the impeachment at once on “the partial evidence” which the committee had heard. In the course of these proceedings the House, if it had not been better guided, might have established 108an unfortunate precedent. While the resolution reported by the Judiciary Committee for the impeachment of the Judge was pending in Committee of the Whole, Mr. Everett moved a counter-resolution that there was not sufficient evidence of evil intent to authorize the House to impeach Judge Peck of high misdemeanors in office. This, in effect, would have converted the grand inquest into a tribunal for the determination of the whole question of guilt or innocence, upon allegations and proofs on the one side and the other. It was opposed by Mr. Storrs, Mr. Ellsworth, Mr. Wickliffe and others, and was negatived. The resolution reported by Mr. Buchanan for the impeachment of the Judge was then adopted by the Committee of the Whole, and reported to the House, after which Mr. Buchanan demanded the yeas and nays, which resulted in a vote of 123 for the impeachment and 49 against it. An article of impeachment was prepared by Mr. Buchanan, and was by order of the House presented to the Senate. The managers appointed to conduct the impeachment on the part of the House were Mr. Buchanan, Henry R. Storrs of New York, George McDuffie of South Carolina, Ambrose Spencer of New York, and Charles Wickliffe of Kentucky.

The Senate was organized as a court of impeachment on the 25th of May, 1830; but the trial was postponed to the second Monday of the next session of Congress. It began on that day, December 20, 1830. It was Mr. Buchanan’s duty to close the case on behalf of the managers, in reply to Mr. Wirt and Mr. Meredith of Baltimore, the counsel for Judge Peck. Of Mr. Buchanan’s speech, I have found no adequate report. It was delivered on the 28th of January, 1831. Contemporary notices of it show that it was an argument of marked ability. His positions as given in the Annals of Congress were in substance the following:

He declared that the usurpation of an authority not legally possessed by a judge, or the manifest abuse of a power really given, was a misbehavior in the sense of the Constitution for which he should be dismissed from office. He contended that the conduct of Judge Peck, in the case of Mr. Lawless, was in express violation of the Constitution and the laws of the land; that the circumstances of that case were amply sufficient to show a criminal intention on his part in the summary punishment of Mr. Lawless; that in order to 109prove the criminality of his intention it was not necessary to demonstrate an actually malicious intention, or a lurking revenge; that the infliction upon Mr. Lawless of a summary and cruel punishment, for having written an article decorous in its language, was itself sufficient to prove the badness of the motive; that the consequences of the Judge’s actions were indicative of his intentions; that our courts had no right to punish, as for contempts, in a summary mode, libels, even in pending causes; and that if he succeeded, as he believed he should, in establishing these positions, he should consider that he had a right to demand the judgment of the court against the respondent.

He took the further position that the publication of Mr. Lawless, under the signature of “A Citizen,” could not, in a trial upon an indictment for libel, be established to be libellous, according to the Constitution and laws of the land; that the paper was, on its face, perfectly harmless in itself; and that, so far as it went, it was not an unfair representation of the opinion of Judge Peck. The honorable manager critically and legally analyzed the nine last specifications in the publication, to establish these points. He then proceeded to sum up and descant upon the testimony produced in the case before the court of impeachment, in order to show the arbitrary and cruel conduct of Judge Peck; and in a peroration, marked by its ardent eloquence, he declared that if this man escaped, the declaration of a distinguished politician of this country, that the power of impeachment was but the scarecrow of the Constitution, would be fully verified; that when this trial commenced, he recoiled with horror from the idea of limiting, and rendering precarious and dependent, the tenure of the judicial office, but that the acquittal of the respondent would reconcile him to that evil, as one less than a hopeless and remediless submission to judicial usurpation and tyranny, at least so far as respected the inferior courts.

God forbid that the limitation should ever be extended to the Supreme Court. Mercy to the respondent would be cruelty to the American people.

Judge Peck was acquitted by a vote of 21 for the impeachment and 22 against it, the constitutional vote of two-thirds requisite for conviction not being obtained. It is quite apparent that no party feeling entered into the case.

Dear Brother:—

I had the honor to receive by last night’s mail a letter from Mr. Van Buren, enclosing me a commission from the President for the district attorneyship. This day I will acknowledge its receipt. I am sincerely glad both on your account and my own that the President has appointed me. It banishes in a 110moment all those suspicions which some persons entertained of his coldness towards you. It should be my highest ambition to justify the appointment by a faithful discharge of official duty.

My appointment appears to be received very well in this city. It will excite some feelings of envy towards me among the young members of the bar. My path, however, is very plain. It shall not alter my conduct or manner in any respect.

The most signal service rendered by Mr. Buchanan in the 21st Congress, as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was in a minority report made by him on the 24th of January, 1831, upon a proposition to repeal the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act of 1789, which gave the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction, by writ of error to the State courts, in cases where the Constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States are drawn in question. A resolution to inquire into the expediency of repealing this great organic law having been referred to the committee, a majority of the committee made an elaborate report in favor of the repeal, through Mr. Smith of South Carolina, accompanied by a bill to effect the repeal. Mr. Buchanan’s counter-report, which had the concurrence of two other members, caused the rejection of the bill, by a vote of 138 to 51. I know of few constitutional discussions which evince a more thorough knowledge or more accurate views of the nature of our mixed system of Government than this report from the pen of Mr. Buchanan. If it be said that the argument is now familiar to us, or that it could have been drawn from various sources, let it be observed that this document shows that Mr. Buchanan was, at this comparatively early period of his life, a well-instructed constitutional jurist; and that while no one could originate at that day any novel views of this important subject, it was no small merit to be able to set forth clearly and cogently the whole substance of such a topic. I think no apology is needed for the insertion here of this valuable paper. It may be prefaced by an extract from a letter of Mr. Buchanan’s youngest brother, George W. Buchanan, which shows how it was received by the public in Pennsylvania:

...... I have read with the highest degree of satisfaction your able report from the minority of the Judiciary Committee. That document will identify your name with the most important constitutional question which has been presented to the consideration of Congress for many years. It was looked for with much anxiety, and is now spoken of by politicians of every party as a lucid and powerful appeal to the patriotism of Congress. If the question was to be started, I am sincerely glad that it has arisen while you occupied the chair of the Judiciary Committee......

The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 21st ultimo, instructing them “to inquire into the expediency of repealing or modifying the twenty-fifth section of an act entitled ‘An act to establish the judicial courts of the United States,’ passed the 24th September, 1789,” having made a report, accompanied by a bill to repeal the same, the minority of that committee, differing in opinion from their associates upon this important question, deem it to be their duty to submit to the House the following report:

The Constitution of the United States has conferred upon Congress certain enumerated powers, and expressly authorizes that body “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying these powers into execution.” In the construction of this instrument, it has become an axiom, the truth of which cannot be controverted, that “the General Government, though limited as to its objects, is supreme with respect to those objects.”

The Constitution has also conferred upon the President, “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur,” the power to make treaties.

By the second section of the sixth article of this instrument it is declared, in emphatic language, that “this Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

The Constitution having conferred upon Congress the power of legislation over certain objects, and upon the President and Senate the power of making treaties with foreign nations, the next question which naturally presented itself to those who framed it was, in what manner it would be most proper that the Constitution itself, and the laws and treaties made under its authority, should be carried into execution. They have decided this question in the following strong and comprehensive language: “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority.” [Art. 3, Sec. 2.] This provision is the only one which could 112have been made in consistency with the character of the Government established by the Constitution. It would have been a strange anomaly had that instrument established a judiciary whose powers did not embrace all the laws and all the treaties made under its authority. The symmetry of the system would thus have been destroyed; and, in many cases, Congress would have had to depend exclusively for the execution of their own laws upon the judiciary of the States. This principle would have been at war with the spirit which pervades the whole Constitution. It was clearly the intention of its framers to create a Government which should have the power of construing and executing its own laws, without any obstruction from State authority. Accordingly, we find that the judicial power of the United States extends, in express terms, “to all cases,” in law and in equity, arising under the Constitution, the laws, and the treaties of the United States. This general language comprehends precisely what it ought to comprehend.

If the judicial powers of the United States does thus extend to “all cases” arising under the Constitution, the laws, and treaties of the Union, how could this power be brought into action over such cases without a law of Congress investing the Supreme Court with the original and appellate jurisdiction embraced by the Constitution?

It was the imperious duty of Congress to make such a law, and it is equally its duty to continue it; indeed, without it, the judicial power of the United States is limited and restricted to such cases only as arise in the Federal courts, and is never brought to bear upon numerous cases, evidently within its range.

When Congress, in the year 1789, legislated upon this subject, they knew that the State courts would often be called upon, in the trial of causes, to give a construction to the Constitution, the treaties, and laws of the United States. What, then, was to be done? If the decisions of the State courts should be final, the Constitution and laws of the Union might be construed to mean one thing in one State, and another thing in another State.

All uniformity in their construction would thus be destroyed. Besides, we might, if this were the case, get into serious conflicts with foreign nations, as a treaty might receive one construction in Pennsylvania, another in Virginia, and a third in New York. Some common and uniform standard of construction was absolutely necessary.

To remedy these and other inconveniences, the first Congress of the United States, composed, in a considerable proportion, of the framers of the Constitution, passed the 25th section of the judicial act of the 24th September, 1789. It is in the following words:

“Sec. 25. And be it further enacted, That a final judgment or decree in any suit, in the highest court of law or equity of a State, in which a decision in the suit could be had, where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States, and the decision is against their validity; or where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under, any State, on the ground 113of their being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of such their validity; or where is drawn in question the construction of any clause of the Constitution, or of a treaty or statute of, or commission held under the United States, and the decision is against the title, right, privilege, or exemption, specially set up or claimed by either party under such clause of the said Constitution, treaty, statute, or commission, may be re-examined and reversed, or affirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States upon a writ of error, the citation being signed by the chief justice, or judge, or chancellor of the court rendering or passing the judgment or decree complained of, or by a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States in the same manner, and under the same regulations, and the writ shall have the same effect, as if the judgment or decree complained of had been rendered or passed in a circuit court; and the proceeding upon the reversal shall also be the same, except that the Supreme Court, instead of remanding the cause for a final decision, as before provided, may, at their discretion, if the cause shall have been once remanded before, proceed to a final decision of the same, and award execution. But no other error shall be assigned or regarded as a ground of reversal in any such case as aforesaid, than such as appears on the face of the record, and immediately respects the before-mentioned questions of validity, or construction of the said Constitution, treaties, statutes, commissions, or authorities, in dispute.”

This section embraces three classes of cases. The first, those in which a State court should decide a law or treaty of the United States to be void, either because it violated the Constitution of the United States, or for any other reason. Ought there not in such cases to be an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States? Without such an appeal, the General Government might be obliged to behold its own laws and its solemn treaties annulled by the judiciary of every State in the Union, without the power of redress.

The second class of cases is of a different character. It embraces those causes in which the validity of State laws is contested, upon the principle that they violate the Constitution, the laws, or the treaties of the United States, and have, therefore, been enacted in opposition to the authority of the “supreme law of the land.” Cases of this description have been of frequent occurrence. It has often been drawn into question before the State courts, whether State laws did or did not violate the Constitution of the United States. Is it not then essential to the preservation of the General Government, that the Supreme Court of the United States should possess the power of reviewing the judgments of State courts in all cases wherein they have established the validity of a State law in opposition to the Constitution and laws of the United States?

The third class differs essentially from each of the two first. In the cases embraced by it, neither the validity of acts of Congress, nor of treaties, nor of State laws is called in question. This clause of the 25th section merely confers upon the Supreme Court the appellate jurisdiction of construing the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States, when their protection has 114been invoked by parties to suits before the State courts, and has been denied by their decision. Without the exercise of this power, in cases originating in the State courts, the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States would be left to be finally construed and executed by a judicial power, over which Congress has no control.

This section does not interfere, either directly or indirectly, with the independence of the State courts in finally deciding all cases arising exclusively under their own constitution and laws. It leaves them in the enjoyment of every power which they possessed before the adoption of the Federal Constitution. It merely declares that, as that Constitution established a new form of Government, and consequently gave to the State courts the power of construing, in certain cases, the Constitution, the laws, and the treaties of the United States, the Supreme Court of the United States should, to this limited extent, but not beyond it, possess the power of reviewing their judgments. The section itself declares that no other error shall be assigned or regarded as a ground of reversal, in any such case as aforesaid, than such as appears on the face of the record, and immediately respects the before-mentioned questions of validity or construction of the said Constitution, treaties, statutes, commissions, or authorities in dispute.

The minority of the committee will now proceed to advance, in a more distinct form, a few of the reasons why, in their opinion, the 25th section of this act ought not to be repealed.

And, in the first place, it ought to be the chief object of all Governments to protect individual rights. In almost every case involving a question before a State court under this section of the judiciary act, the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States are interposed for the protection of individuals. Does a citizen invoke the protection of an act of Congress upon a trial before a State court which decides that act to be unconstitutional and void, and renders judgment against him? This section secures his right of appeal from such a decision to the Supreme Court of the United States.

When a citizen, in a suit before a State court, contends that a State law, by which he is assailed, is a violation of the Constitution of the United States and therefore void (if his plea should be overruled), he may bring this question before the Supreme Court of the United States.

In like manner, when an individual claims any right before a State court under the Constitution or laws of the United States, and the decision is against his claim, he may appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.

If this section were repealed, all these important individual rights would be forfeited.

The history of our country abundantly proves that individual States are liable to high excitements and strong prejudices. The judges of these States would be more or less than men if they did not participate in the feelings of the community by which they are surrounded. Under the influence of these excitements, individuals, whose rights happen to clash with the prevailing feeling of the State, would have but a slender hope of obtaining justice before 115a State tribunal. There would be the power and the influence of the State sovereignty on the one side, and an individual who had made himself obnoxious to popular odium on the other. In such cases, ought the liberty or the property of a citizen, so far as he claims the same under the Constitution or laws of the United States, to be decided before a State court, without an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, on whom the construction of this very Constitution and these laws has been conferred, in all cases, by the Constitution?

The Supreme Court, considering the elevated character of its judges, and that they reside in parts of the Union remote from each other, can never be liable to local excitements and local prejudices. To that tribunal our citizens can appeal with safety and with confidence (as long as the 25th section of the judicial act shall remain upon the statute book) whenever they consider that their rights, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, have been violated by a State court. Besides, should this section be repealed, it would produce a denial of equal justice to parties drawing in question the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. In civil actions, the plaintiff might then bring his action in a Federal or State court, as he pleased, and as he thought he should be most likely to succeed; whilst the defendant would have no option, but must abide the consequences without the power of removing the cause from a State into a Federal court, except in the single case of his being sued out of the district in which he resides; and this, although he might have a conclusive defence under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Another reason for preserving this section is, that without it there would be no uniformity in the construction and administration of the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. If the courts of twenty-four distinct, sovereign States, each possess the power, in the last resort, of deciding upon the Constitution and laws of the United States, their construction may be different in every State of the Union. That act of Congress which conforms to the Constitution of the United States, and is valid in the opinion of the supreme court of Georgia, may be a direct violation of the provisions of that instrument, and be void in the judgment of the supreme court of South Carolina. A State law in Virginia might in this manner be declared constitutional, whilst the same law, if passed by the Legislature of Pennsylvania, would be void. Nay, what would be still more absurd, a law or treaty of the United States with a foreign nation, admitted to be constitutionally made, might secure rights to the citizens of one State, which would be denied to those of another. Although the same Constitution and laws govern the Union, yet the rights acquired under them would vary with every degree of latitude. Surely the framers of the Constitution would have left their work incomplete, had they established no common tribunal to decide its own construction, and that of the laws and treaties made under its authority. They are not liable to this charge, because they have given express power to the Judiciary of the Union over “all cases, in law and equity, arising under this 116Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority.”

The first Congress of the United States have, to a considerable extent, carried this power into execution by the passage of the judicial act, and it contains no provision more important than the 25th section.

This section ought not to be repealed, because, in the opinion of the minority of the Committee on the Judiciary, its repeal would seriously endanger the existence of this Union. The chief evil which existed under the old confederation, and which gave birth to the present Constitution, was that the General Government could not act directly upon the people, but only by requisition upon sovereign States. The consequence was, that the States either obeyed or disobeyed these requisitions, as they thought proper. The present Constitution was intended to enable the Government of the United States to act immediately upon the people of the States, and to carry its own laws into full execution, by virtue of its own authority. If this section were repealed, the General Government would be deprived of the power, by means of its own judiciary, to give effect either to the Constitution which called it into existence, or to the laws and treaties made under its authority. It would be compelled to submit, in many important cases, to the decisions of State courts; and thus the very evil which the present Constitution was intended to prevent would be entailed upon the people. The judiciary of the States might refuse to carry into effect the laws of the United States; and without that appeal to the Supreme Court which the 25th section authorizes, these laws would thus be entirely annulled, and could not be executed without a resort to force.

This position may be illustrated by a few striking examples. Suppose the Legislature of one of the States, believing the tariff laws to be unconstitutional, should determine that they ought not to be executed within its limits. They accordingly pass a law, imposing the severest penalties upon the collector and other custom-house officers of the United States within their territory, if they should collect the duties on the importation of foreign merchandise. The collector proceeds to discharge the duties of his office under the laws of the United States, and he is condemned and punished before a State court for violating this State law. Repeal this section, and the decision of the State court would be final and conclusive; and any State could thus nullify any act of Congress which she deemed to be unconstitutional.

The Executive of one of the States, in a message to the Legislature, has declared it to be his opinion, that the land belonging to the United States within her territory is now the property of the State, by virtue of her sovereign authority. Should the Legislature be of the same opinion, and pass a law for the punishment of the land officers of the United States who should sell any of the public lands within her limits, this transfer of property might be virtually accomplished by the repeal of the 25th section of the judicial act. Our land officers might then be severely punished, and thus prohibited by the courts of that State from performing their duty under the laws of the 117Union, without the possibility of redress in any constitutional or legal form. In this manner, the title of the United States to a vast domain, which has cost the nation many millions, and which justly belongs to the people of the several States, would be defeated or greatly impaired.

Another illustration might be introduced. Suppose the Legislature of Pennsylvania, being of opinion that the charter of the Bank of the United States is unconstitutional, were to declare it to be a nuisance, and inflict penalties upon all its officers for making discounts or receiving deposits. Should the courts of that State carry such a law into effect, without the 25th section there would be no appeal from their decision; and the Legislature and courts of a single State might thus prostrate an institution established under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

In all such cases, redress can now be peaceably obtained in the ordinary administration of justice. A writ of error issues from the Supreme Court, which finally decides the question whether the act of Congress was constitutional or not; and if they determine in the affirmative, the judgment of the State court is reversed. The laws are thus substituted instead of arms, and the States kept within their proper orbits by the judicial authority. But if no such appeal existed, then, upon the occurrence of cases of this character, the General Government would be compelled to determine whether the Union should be dissolved, or whether there should be a recurrence to force—an awful alternative, which we trust may never be presented. We will not attempt further to portray the evils which might result from the abandonment of the present judicial system. They will strike every reflecting mind.

It has of late years been contended that this section of the judicial act was unconstitutional, and that Congress do not possess the power of investing the Supreme Court with appellate jurisdiction in any case which has been finally decided in the courts of the States. It has also been contended that, even if they do possess this power, it does not extend to cases in which a State is a party. On this branch of the question, we would refer the House to the very able and conclusive argument of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the cases of Martin vs. Hunter’s Lessee (1st Wheaton, 304) and Cohens vs. the State of Virginia (6 Wheaton, 264) by which the affirmative of these propositions is clearly established. It may be proper, however, that we should make a few observations upon this part of the question. Those who have argued in favor of these positions, assert that the general words of the Constitution, extending the judicial power of the Union “to all cases, in law and equity,” arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, ought, by construction, to be restricted to such cases in law and equity as may originate in the courts of the Union. They would thus establish a limitation at war with the letter, and, in our opinion, equally at war with the spirit of the instrument. Had such been the intention of the framers of the Constitution, they well knew in what language to express that intention. Had it been their purpose to restrict the meaning of the general language which they had used in the first clause of the section, they could have done 118so with much propriety in the second. This clause, after providing “that, in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction,” proceeds to declare “that, in all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the Congress shall make.” On the supposition contended for, it is wholly unaccountable that the framers of the Constitution did not limit the natural effect of the words used in the first clause, by making the second to read “that, in all the other cases before mentioned,” arising in the inferior courts of the United States, “the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.” But no such restriction exists; and, from the fair import of the words used in both clauses, the Supreme Court possess the power of finally deciding “all cases, in law and equity,” arising under the Constitution, the laws, and the treaties of the United States, no matter whether they may have originated in a Federal or in a State court, and no matter whether States or individuals be the parties.

But it is not our intention to enter into a protracted constitutional argument upon the present occasion, because this question has long since been put at rest, if any constitutional question can ever be considered as settled in this country. The Federalist, which is now considered a text-book in regard to the construction of the Constitution, and deservedly so, as well from the great merit of the work as the high character of its authors, is clear and explicit on this subject. After reasoning upon it at some length, the author of the 83d number of that production arrives at the following conclusion: “To confine, therefore, the general expressions which gave appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court to appeals from the subordinate Federal courts, instead of allowing their extension to the State courts, would be to abridge the latitude of the terms, in subversion of the intent, contrary to every sound rule of interpretation.”

The Federalist, it will be recollected, was written between the formation of the Constitution and its adoption by the States. Immediately after its adoption, Congress, by passing the 25th section of the judicial act, now sought to be repealed, fully confirmed this construction. This appellate jurisdiction has ever since been exercised by the Supreme Court in a great variety of cases; and we are not aware that the constitutionality of its exercise has ever been questioned by the decision of any State court, except in a single instance, which did not occur until the year 1815. And even in that case (Hunter vs. Fairfax), the judgment of the Supreme Court was carried into effect according to the existing law, without endangering the peace of the country.

The last topic to which we would advert is, the claim which has been set up to exempt the judgments obtained by the States of this Union, before their own courts, in civil and criminal suits, prosecuted in their name, from being reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States upon a writ of error. Much stress has been laid by those who sustain this claim, upon the general 119proposition that a sovereign independent State cannot be sued, except by its own consent. But does this proposition apply, in its extent, to the States of this Union. That is the question for discussion.

We have in this country an authority much higher than that of sovereign States. It is the authority of the sovereign people of each State. In their State conventions they ratified the Constitution of the United States; and so far as that Constitution has deprived the States of any of the attributes of sovereignty, they are bound by it, because such was the will of the people. The Constitution, thus called into existence by the will of the people of the several States, has declared itself, and the laws and treaties which should emanate from its authority, to be “the supreme law of the land;” and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Why, then, should a State, who has obtained a judgment in her own courts against an individual, in violation of this “supreme law of the land,” be protected from having her judgment reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States? Is there any reason, either in the Constitution or in natural justice, why judgments obtained by a State in her own courts should be held sacred, notwithstanding they violated the Constitution and laws of the Union, which would not apply, at least with equal force, in favor of individual plaintiffs? The Constitution subjects to the review of the Supreme Court all cases in law or equity arising under itself, or the laws of the Union. It excepts no case bearing this character. Whether the party be a State or an individual, all must alike bow to the sovereign will of the people, expressed in the Constitution of the United States.

In suits brought by a State against an individual in her own courts, there is much greater danger of oppression, considering the relative power and influence of the parties, than there would be in controversies between individuals. And are these to be the only cases selected, in which the citizen shall not be permitted to protect himself by the Constitution and laws of the Union before the Supreme Court of the United States? Is it not sufficient that, under the Constitution, the States cannot be sued as defendants, without adding to this, by a strained and unnatural construction, the additional privilege that the judgments which they may obtain as plaintiffs or prosecutors before their own courts, whether right or wrong, shall in all cases be irreversible?

We will not repeat the considerations which have been already urged to prove that, unless this provision of the Constitution applies to the States, the rights of individuals will be sacrificed, all uniformity of decision abandoned, and each one of the States will have it in her power to set the Constitution and laws of the United States at defiance.

The eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States interferes in no respect with the principles for which we have contended. It is in these words:

“The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit, in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the 120United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign State.”

Chief Justice Marshall, in delivering the opinion of the court in the case of Cohens vs. Virginia, has given so clear, and in our opinion, so correct an exposition of the true construction of the amendment, that we shall, in conclusion, present to the House a few extracts from that opinion, instead of any argument of our own. He says that “the first impression made on the mind by this amendment is, that it was intended for those cases, and for those only, in which some demand against a State is made by an individual in the courts of the Union. If we consider the causes to which it is to be traced, we are conducted to the same conclusion. A general interest might well be felt, in leaving to a State the full power of consulting its convenience in the adjustment of its debts, or of other claims upon it; but no interest could be felt in so changing the relation between the whole and its parts, as to strip the Government of the means of protecting, by the instrumentality of its courts, the Constitution and laws from active violation. The words of the amendment appear to the court to justify and require this construction.

“To commence a suit, is to demand something by the institution of process in a court of justice; and to prosecute the suit is, according to the common acceptation of language, to continue that demand. By a suit commenced by an individual against a State, we should understand a process sued out by that individual against the State, for the purpose of establishing some claim against it by the judgment of a court; and the prosecution of that suit is its continuance. Whatever may be the stages of its progress, the actor is still the same. Suits had been commenced in the Supreme Court against some of the States before the amendment was introduced into Congress, and others might be commenced before it should be adopted by the State Legislatures, and might be depending at the time of its adoption. The object of the amendment was not only to prevent the commencement of future suits, but to arrest the prosecution of those which might be commenced when this article should form a part of the Constitution. It therefore embraces both objects; and its meaning is, that the judicial power shall not be construed to extend to any suit which may be commenced, or which, if already commenced, may be prosecuted against a State, by the citizens of another State. If a suit, brought in one court, and carried by legal process to a supervising court, be a continuation of the same suit, then this suit is not commenced nor prosecuted against a State. It is clearly, in its commencement, the suit of a State against an individual, which suit is transferred to this court, not for the purpose of asserting any claim against the State, but for the purpose of asserting a constitutional defence against a claim made by a State.

“Under the judiciary act, the effect of a writ of error is simply to bring the record into court, and submit the judgment of the inferior tribunal to re-examination. It does not, in any manner, act upon the parties; it acts only on the record. It removes the record into the supervising tribunal. Where, then, a State obtains a judgment against an individual, and the court rendering 121such judgment overrules a defence set up under the Constitution or laws of the United States, the transfer of this record into the Supreme Court for the sole purpose of inquiring whether the judgment violates the Constitution or laws of the United States can, with no propriety, we think, be denominated a suit commenced or prosecuted against the State, whose judgment is so far re-examined. Nothing is demanded from the State. No claim against it, of any description, is asserted or prosecuted. The party is not to be restored to the possession of anything. Essentially, it is an appeal on a single point; and the defendant who appeals from a judgment rendered against him, is never said to commence or prosecute a suit against the plaintiff, who has obtained the judgment. The writ of error is given rather than an appeal, because it is the more usual mode of removing suits at common law; and because, perhaps, it is more technically proper, where a single point of law, and not the whole case, is to be re-examined. But an appeal might be given, and might be so regulated as to effect every purpose of a writ of error. The mode of removal is form, not substance. Whether it be by writ of error or appeal, no claim is asserted, no demand is made by the original defendant; he only asserts the constitutional right to have his defence examined by that tribunal whose province it is to construe the Constitution and laws of the Union.

“The only part of the proceeding which is in any manner personal is the citation. And what is the citation? It is simply notice to the opposite party that the record is transferred into another court, where he may appear, or decline to appear, as his judgment or inclination may determine. As the party who has obtained a judgment is out of court, and may, therefore, not know that his cause is removed, common justice requires that notice of the fact should be given him: but this notice is not a suit, nor has it the effect of process. If the party does not choose to appear, he cannot be brought into court, nor is his failure to appear considered as a default. Judgment cannot be given against him for his non-appearance; but the judgment is to be re-examined, and reversed or affirmed, in like manner as if the party had appeared and argued his cause.

“The point of view in which this writ of error, with its citation, has been considered uniformly in the courts of the Union, has been well illustrated by a reference to the course of this court in suits instituted by the United States. The universally received opinion is, that no suit can be commenced or prosecuted against the United States; that the judiciary act does not authorize such suits; yet writs of error, accompanied with citations, have uniformly issued for the removal of judgments in favor of the United States into a superior court, where they have, like those in favor of an individual, been re-examined, and affirmed or reversed. It has never been suggested that such writ of error was a suit against the United States, and therefore not within the jurisdiction of the appellate court.

“It is, then, the opinion of the court that the defendant who removes a judgment rendered against him by a State court into this court, for the purpose 122of re-examining the question whether that judgment be in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, does not commence or prosecute a suit against the State, whatever may be its opinion, where the effect of the writ may be to restore the party to the possession of a thing which he demands.”

All which is respectfully submitted.

James Buchanan, Wm. W. Ellsworth, E. D. White.

It was Mr. Buchanan’s intention to retire from public life at the close of this session of Congress in March, 1831. But in the early part of February, without his previous knowledge, a movement was set on foot in Pennsylvania to bring him forward as the candidate of that State for the Vice-Presidency at the next election, on the ticket with General Jackson, whose re-election to the Presidency was already anticipated by his party. As soon as information of this purpose reached Mr. Buchanan, he did what he could to discourage it, as will appear from the following letter to one of his Pennsylvania friends and neighbors:

Dear Sir:—

I received your kind letter of the 7th instant and the Chester County Democrat of the 8th by the same mail; and I confess the information which they contained was wholly unexpected. I can say nothing upon the subject to which they refer, unless it be to express a profound and grateful sense of the kindness and partiality of those of my friends in Chester County who would elevate me to a station to which I have never aspired. I cannot flatter myself, for a single moment, that the people of the State will respond to a nomination which I feel has been dictated in a great degree by personal friendship; and I shall retire to private life, after the close of the present session, without casting one lingering look behind. As a private citizen I shall always remember with the deepest sensibility the many favors which I have received from the people of the district whom I have so long represented, perfectly convinced that they have already bestowed upon me quite as many honors as I have ever deserved.

I sent you by yesterday’s mail a copy of the correspondence between the President and Vice-President. Its publication has not produced the sensation here which was expected. I think it will not injure General Jackson in 123the estimation of his friends in Pennsylvania. Its effect, however, will be still more to divide the personal friends of Mr. Crawford and Mr. Calhoun.

The speech which I made upon Peck’s trial will probably not appear until a full report of the case shall be published. The commendations which have been bestowed upon it, both here and elsewhere, have been of a character so far beyond its merits that I fear the public will be disappointed upon the appearance in print.

I would suggest to you the propriety of considering this letter confidential so far as it regards myself. The subject is of a nature so delicate, and anything I can say upon it is so liable to misconstruction, that I should not have answered your letter, had I not felt that you have always deserved my friendship, and that I might rely with confidence on your discretion.

P. S.—What is now the state of anti-masonry in your county?

The truth is that a longer continuance in public life did not accord with Mr. Buchanan’s plans. His professional income had fallen to the low rate of about $2000 per annum, and he determined to restore it to what it had previously been, and to take his chances for raising it still higher.

He had many qualifications for great success at the bar: competent learning, untiring industry, a ready and pleasing address, an uncommon reasoning power, and a reputation of perfect integrity. Had he been impelled by the wants of a family to devote himself exclusively to his profession, there can be no doubt that he would have risen in it to great eminence. His talents were not of that order which would have enabled him to unite in his own person the very different functions of a statesman and a lawyer; a union which has been exhibited in a very marked manner by only one person in America, and perhaps by no one in England. But my estimate of Mr. Buchanan’s abilities leads me to say, that if he had not at this period of his life been again drawn into a political career, he would have ranked among the first lawyers of his time. He must have soon encased in the forensic discussion of constitutional questions. He had very early imbibed a deep reverence for the Constitution of the United States, and his turn of mind would have adapted him to the handling of questions such as were then arising and are likely long to arise upon its interpretation. 124As he grew older and his sphere of professional employment became widened, he must have been found at the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, if not as the peer of Webster and Pinkney, at least as the peer of many against whom those great advocates had to put forth their strength. But from such a professional career Mr. Buchanan was drawn away, not by the prospect of the Vice-Presidency, but by the unexpected offer of the mission to Russia, an account of which will be found in the next chapter.

Dear Brother:—

I am much pleased to observe from the U. S. Telegraph of the 25th ultimo that you have taken a manly stand on the constitutional side of the Indian question. In this pleasure there is no doubt a spice of personal vanity, as your sentiments, so far as they can be inferred from the debate, are in perfect accordance with my own. It is a question which has produced an unaccountable excitement in our city. Every word on the subject is devoured with wonderful avidity; and I can assure you that you did not put too high an estimate on public feeling when you moved for the printing of ten thousand copies of the report. As public opinion is yet unsettled, it is important that the report of the committee, if temperate and decided, should have an extensive circulation.

I have read your speech on the Judiciary with great interest and advantage. The legal gentlemen in our city have highly complimented both its style and research. The best evidence of its effect is, that all those with whom I have conversed on the subject are decidedly in favor of your bill.

Anti-masonry is still flourishing. I do not know the state of feeling in the eastern section of Pennsylvania, but I am now perfectly convinced that no western county will return a mason to the next Legislature. Strong, however, as anti-masonry is, much of its apparent strength is borrowed from extrinsic circumstances. In this city, for instance, many persons are anxious to be rid of a set of rulers who have managed with so much political dexterity as to control the destinies of this county for many years. These men happen to be masons. No other hobby could be mounted with the same prospect of success. The honest anti-masons, the old Adams men, and the disappointed office-seekers are easily induced to unite their influence against the “powers that be.” The motley materials are thus thrown into one caldron and stirred up into a dangerous compound. These remarks I have made to account for the extraordinary strength of anti-masonry in this quarter......

I am obliged to you for the salutary counsel contained in your last letter. I believe that a whole volume of advice (both moral and political) is contained 125in that single direction, “Be wise as the serpent, but harmless as the dove.” ...... My health is very good.

It appears, however, that a meeting was held at Lancaster in March, at which he was nominated for the Vice-Presidency, with what effect may be learned from the following letters written by his brother George from Pittsburgh:

Dear Brother:—

I have just read with great pleasure the proceedings of the Lancaster meeting which nominated you for the Vice-Presidency. Whether success shall crown the exertions of your friends or not, no public man can receive so flattering and precious a testimonial as the unanimous and unsolicited voice of his neighbors and acquaintances. In this part of the State, the idea seems to take very well. Both this county and Washington will, I think, hold meetings in your favor. I saw the editor of the Manufacturer this morning and ascertained that he will be disposed to take a prominent part. The Democrat will probably not be unfavorable. The editor, however, is a very timid creature.

On Thursday last I was so unfortunate as to fall and break my arm. The pain has subsided in a great degree, and I think that my arm will be restored in a short time to its wonted strength and action. I can now attend to any business that does not require the use of both hands.

I write under a feeling of great inconvenience, and will therefore close.

Dear Brother:—

I have been absent from home in attendance upon a sale of United States property at Uniontown for a week past. I succeeded in effecting a very good disposition of the property. The Government, I have no doubt, will approve my proceedings.

I find that in every county in which I have been, your nomination for the Vice-Presidency is very popular. In Fayette and Washington there will scarcely be a division of sentiment. Still, however, it is thought proper to suspend all public proceedings in your favor till the time of holding their regular Democratic meetings in the summer. That course will also be adopted in this county. Every leading Jackson politician here, with the exception of 126one or two Ingham men, is favorable to your nomination. It will, however, be probably better to wait for a further expression of public opinion at the regular meetings of the party throughout the State. I observe that in the Kentucky Gazette your name is placed on the Democratic ticket, under General Jackson’s.

It is believed here that the appointment of Attorney-General has been tendered to you. If so, I hope that you will accept it. It is a most honorable station, and free from that abuse which attaches to the Secretaryships. Will Van Buren be a candidate for the Vice-Presidency?

My arm is not yet so far restored as to be of any use. I trust, however, that the weakness is only of a temporary nature. My health, in other respects, is good.

Mr. Buchanan returned to Lancaster after this meeting had been held. His nomination to the Vice-Presidency continued to be agitated in other parts of Pennsylvania, and in June a great meeting of the supporters of General Jackson was held at Williamsport, of which George Buchanan gives the following account:

Dear Brother:—

I arrived here on Thursday. The heat was so oppressive on horseback that I sold my horse at Bellefonte, and returned in the stage. The journey has, in a very great degree, restored my health.

The Jackson meeting at Williamsport was an exceedingly respectable one. Fifteen counties were represented. There can be no doubt that you were the Pennsylvanian to whom the resolution respecting the Vice-Presidency was intended to point. I have every reason to believe that your name would have been inserted by an almost unanimous vote, if Mr. Potter, from Centier, had not been detained at home by the illness of his wife. He would have offered a resolution nominating you; and I can say, from information of the most undoubted credit, that at least two-thirds of all the jurors would have warmly sustained it. Mr. Ward, editor of the Susquehanna Register, and Mr. Youngman, editor of the Union Times, with both of whom I became intimately acquainted, are decidedly favorable to your nomination. They are intelligent young men, and have, in a warm and flattering manner, solicited my correspondence.

In the Western country, I find that the Ingham faction is extremely weak. Out of Bradford County, and apart from their family connections, they appear to have no friends in the West. The people in our district speak very favorably 127of Mr. Muhlenburg as the next Governor, and, I assure you, I did nothing to discountenance that feeling. The popularity of the present Governor has been injured by the appointment of General McKean, the proposition to tax coal, and the character of certain county appointments. The resolution adopted at our meeting, and opposing General Jackson’s course in the Cabinet affair, was intended as a direct censure upon Messrs. Ingham, &c. Owing to the relation I bore to you and to General Jackson, I determined to take no active part in the meeting.

I should like very much to see you and hold a long conversation on matters and things. In July I shall endeavor to visit Franklin County, and, if you should be unable to meet me there, I will extend my journey to Lancaster.

Governor Wolf left our city this morning for Erie. He was here at the time of my arrival, and, in company with several ladies and gentleman, I escorted him to Economy. He was exceedingly well received by the people of that singular village. His plain manners and German language endeared him very much to Raff and his whole Society. The Governor treated me with great attention, and evinced a disposition to be very familiar. His daughter, however, pleased my fancy much more than the old gentleman himself. She is a very interesting lady, and has well nigh stolen my heart.

I observe that the newspapers are determined to give you some office. They now make you Minister to Russia. Is this report true? If so, it will then become your duty to consider what sort of a Secretary your brother George would make. It would be a very interesting time to visit Europe.^[25]

JOHN RANDOLPH OF ROANOKE MADE MINISTER TO RUSSIA—FAILURE OF MR. RANDOLPH’S HEALTH—THE MISSION OFFERED TO MR. BUCHANAN—HIS MOTHER’S OPPOSITION TO HIS ACCEPTANCE—EMBARKS AT NEW YORK AND ARRIVES AT LIVERPOOL—LETTERS FROM ENGLAND—JOURNEY TO ST. PETERSBURG—CORRESPONDENCE WITH FRIENDS AT HOME.

After General Jackson became President in March, 1829, he determined to offer the Mission to Russia to “John Randolph of Roanoke.” This offer was made in September of that year, and was then accepted; but the nomination was not submitted to the Senate until the following May. It was confirmed without opposition from any quarter.^[26] Before he sailed, Mr. Randolph had leave granted him by the President to spend the following winter in the south of Europe, if the state of his health should require it. He remained at St. Petersburg only long enough to be accredited. His constitution was too far impaired to admit of his encountering the rigors of a Russian winter. He left the affairs of the legation in the hands of Mr. Clay, the Secretary, and went to England.

In his annual message in December (1830), the President communicated to Congress the fact of Mr. Randolph’s necessary absence from his post, on leave, and said that the public interests in that quarter would still be attended to by the Minister, 129through the Secretary. When the annual appropriation bill came before the House of Representatives in January (1831), a long and acrimonious discussion took place upon a motion to strike out the salary of the Minister to Russia. It was contended that the Mission was actually, if not technically, vacant; and it was charged that the appointment of Mr. Randolph, with the understanding that he might leave his post at his own discretion, was a “job.” To this it was answered by the friends of the Administration that the responsibility for his appointment lay with the President and the Senate; that in the Senate the opposition entirely approved of the appointment; and that for the House to refuse to pay the salary of a Minister because he was absent from his post on leave given by the President, would be highly improper. In the course of this debate, Mr. Buchanan made a temperate and judicious speech, in which he defended the appointment. The result was that the appropriation was retained in the bill and the bill was passed.^[27]

It became necessary, however, in the spring of this year, for the President to recall Mr. Randolph and to select his successor. In those days, the public men of the country did not propose themselves for such appointments. The first intimation that reached Mr. Buchanan of the President’s wish to make him Minister to Russia, came to him in a letter from a confidential friend of the President.

Dear Sir:—

Where are you, and what doing? I cannot tell, having heard nothing from you since the adjournment of Congress. That you are doing well, though, I have no doubt and earnestly hope.

I introduce myself to you now at the request and by the direction of the President. The Mission to St. Petersburg is expected shortly to become vacant. It will afford the President pleasure to confide this trust to you, if it shall suit your convenience to accept it. He desires me to make known his wishes to you and to solicit an answer. It is at the present an important and a highly interesting part of the world. For reasons not material now to be explained, the President desires that you will consider this communication entirely of a confidential character.

Dear Sir:—

I received your letter last evening, offering me, “by the direction of the President,” the Mission to St. Petersburg. I feel with the deepest sensibility this pledge of the kindness of the President, and the recollection of it shall ever be engraven on my grateful memory. My attachment for him, both personal and political, has been of the warmest character, and he has now engrafted upon that feeling a strong sense of individual gratitude.

There is but a single circumstance which induces me to doubt whether I ought to accept the Mission. I wish to be placed in no public station in which I cannot discharge my duty with usefulness to the country and honor to the administration of General Jackson. Ignorant as I now am of the French language, I doubt whether I could acquire a sufficient knowledge of it in proper time to enable me to hold that free communion with the political circles in St. Petersburg which I consider essential to the able discharge of the duties of a foreign minister. I have much business now on hand which I could not immediately leave without doing serious injury to individuals who have confided in me. Will you be so kind as to inform me at what time the President would think the public interest required me to leave the country in case I should accept the Mission?

Please to remember me to the President in the strongest terms. Accept my thanks for your uniform kindness, and present my respects to Mrs. Eaton. I remain

Dear Sir:—

I have just received your letter, and will show it to the President, whom I shall see during the day. The difficulty you suggest can no doubt be remedied. Mr. R. is not expected to return before July or August; it would then be too late in the season to reach St. Petersburg by water transportation. To depart in September would create the necessity of travelling over land from Hamburg or Havre. This, I am confident, the President would not ask of you. I feel satisfied that he will grant the indulgence asked and defer your departure until next spring. But I will see him, and if I be wrong in this, I will again write you to-morrow;—if no letter come, you may understand by the silence that my suggestions are approved by the President.

P. S. I will write to you to-morrow or the next day, at any rate.

3 o’clock. I sent your letter to the President. In answer he thus writes: “Say to Mr. Buchanan that he will not be required to go out before next winter or spring, that he may reach St. Petersburg on the breaking up of the ice—unless something more than is now expected arises, when the President will rely upon Mr. Buchanan’s patriotism to proceed. He will have sufficient time to arrange his affairs.”

Dear Sir:—

After the receipt of your last kind letter of the 7th inst., with the extract from the President’s note to you annexed, granting me all the indulgence I could have desired, I can no longer hesitate to accept the Russian Mission. I fear that the necessary arrangements, both of a professional and private character, which I must soon begin to make preparatory to leaving the country—together with the study of the French language, which I intend to commence—may disclose the fact that this Mission has been offered to me and accepted. Indeed, from the publications in the newspapers it was believed by many before I had any intimation that such an intention existed on the part of the President. Is there any reason why I should for the present defer these preparations?

Please to present my grateful compliments to the President, and believe me to be

Hon. John H. Eaton.

Dear Sir:—

On receiving your letter this morning I referred it to the President, and he has returned me a hasty note, which I enclose to you. It is quite like himself, candid and frank.

Dear Sir:—

I send you a letter to-day received from Mr. Buchanan. What shall I say to him?

Dear Sir:—

Say to him in reply, to go on and make his preparations and let the newspapers make any comments that they may think proper, and mind them not. It is only necessary that he should not give them any information on this subject—the journals will say what they please, and be it so.

My Dear Sir:—

Mr. Taney having given me your letter of the 26th July, with a request that I would communicate it to the President, I did so; and he has directed me to say that it was not deemed proper to make the offer of the Russian Mission public until Mr. Randolph’s return should make the place vacant, and that when that event happened he would direct me to write to you.

The former communications were made to you while I was confined to my bed, and did not pass through my Department, or they would have been put in a shape that would have spared you any embarrassment on the subject.

I am, my dear Sir, with the greatest regard and esteem,

My Dear Sir:—

I received your letter and immediately waited on Mr. Livingston, and placed it in his hands, requesting him to ascertain whether your appointment and acceptance might not at once be made public. Mr. Livingston informed me to-day that he had seen the President, and that the only reason for desiring that nothing should be said about it was that Mr. Randolph had not yet returned, and that he did not wish that your appointment should be formally made and publicly announced until Mr. Randolph arrived in this country. The Secretary of State will, however, write to you himself to-day. I omitted to ask him when Mr. Randolph was expected, but he will probably mention the time in his letter to you. I can readily imagine that the present state of things may be rather embarrassing to you, and hope it will not be long before an appointment which I am quite sure will give great satisfaction to our friends, can be officially made known.

Mr. Livingston intends to go to New York in the course of this week in order to have a conference with Mr. McLane and Mr. Van Buren before the latter sails for England. He will leave Washington on Thursday, unless he should learn in the mean time that Mr. McLane is on his way to this place. And as an interview with him on your affairs would, I presume, be agreeable to you, perhaps you may make it convenient to meet him in New York. Governor Cass has accepted the appointment of Secretary of War, and was to leave home on the first of this month, and expected to be here before the 15th.

Wishing you, my dear Sir, a pleasant excursion, and regretting that my engagements here will prevent me from joining you at Saratoga, I am

There was one member of Mr. Buchanan’s family who was decidedly opposed to his acceptance of this mission. This was his mother, then at the age of 65. It would be interesting to know what was the special reason which led this excellent and intelligent lady to feel as she did about this appointment. Whether it was anything more than a presentiment that she should never see him again after he had crossed the ocean, or whether she thought that it would not be wise for him to venture in a new path of public life, can only be inferred from the following letter, which she wrote to him after his decision had been made:

Mr Dear Son:—

With Harriet’s permission, I write you a few lines in her letter. I feel deep solicitude respecting your mission to Russia, and perhaps I am too late in laying [before you] my objections, which, in my estimation, are formidable. Would it not be practicable, even now, to decline its acceptance? Your political career has been of that description which ought to gratify your ambition; and as to pecuniary matters, they are no object to you. If you can, consistently with the character of a gentleman and a man of honor, decline, how great a gratification it would be to me. May God of His infinite goodness, dispose of us in whatever way may promote His glory and secure our everlasting felicity, is the prayer of your affectionate

P. S.—At what time do you intend paying us that visit, previous to your departure from the country which gave you birth, and I expect, to me, the last visit? Do not disappoint me, but certainly come.

There is no record of this visit, which was indeed the last, but which was undoubtedly made. One of the strongest reasons that weighed with Mr. Buchanan against his acceptance of this mission was his mother’s advanced age, and the probability that he might never see her again. In the latter part of August and the early part of September, he was absent from Lancaster on a journey to the East, on account of his health. On his return, he wrote a private letter to General Jackson; part of which, however, is wanting in the copy before me:

Dear General:—

Having had the bilious fever severely for the last three autumns, I was advised by my physicians to go to the North this summer, as the best means of preventing its recurrence. Accordingly, I have been wandering about among the New Yorkers and the Yankees for several weeks past. I reached home but last night. Whilst I was at Boston, the anti-masonic letter of Mr. Adams made its appearance. This folly, although it caps the climax, is in perfect character with the history of his conduct. It is a melancholy spectacle to see a man who has held the first office acting as he has done. It is 135now believed seriously, even by his former friends, that he is courting the anti-masonic nomination. He and Rush are a par nobile fratrum. I was happy to find everywhere that the little specks which appeared on the political horizon—about the time you changed your Cabinet—have been entirely dissipated. It could not have been otherwise. In the opinion of your friends, the present Cabinet is just such a one as it ought to be. In this State, your strength has alarmed those who evidently wished to abandon you, and they are now the loudest in your support. It not being in their power to affect you, they are pushing another purpose with all their might. They are strenuously opposed to a national convention to nominate a Vice-President; and through the inadvertence of our friends who are without suspicion, it appears to be settled that a State convention, which will meet to nominate a Governor on the 4th of March next, will also select a candidate for the Vice-Presidency. This nomination ought to be made by a Jackson convention on the 8th of January. The consequence will be that the State administration—on account of its extensive patronage and the interest felt by all the State office-holders in sending their particular friends to the convention—will probably be able to control the nomination. George M. Dallas is unquestionably the candidate of the State administration, and of all those who are the friends of Mr. Ingham and Calhoun. Now I have no wish to be a candidate for the Vice-Presidency; on the contrary, my nomination was put up without my consent, and it is my intention to decline, but I desire to do it——

[The residue of the original letter is lost.]

Although Mr. Buchanan had accepted the offer of the Russian Mission, his nomination could not be submitted to the Senate until after that body had assembled in December, 1831. It was acted upon in the Senate in the early part of January, 1832, and from the following letter from Mr. Livingston, the Secretary of State, it appears that the nomination was confirmed by an unanimous or nearly unanimous vote:

My Dear Sir:—

I pray you to receive my congratulations on your appointment and the unanimity with which your nomination is understood to have been confirmed by the Senate—a favor which it is believed will not be conferred upon all of us. Allow me also to ask at what time you can arrange your affairs for a departure. Have you designated any one to serve as your Secretary of Legation? You know that your wishes will be consulted on the occasion. Should you not desire that Mr. Clay should be retained in that situation, I 136could mention a gentleman who would be highly useful to you. He speaks most of the modern languages, has travelled in Europe and made good use of his travels; he is now employed in my Department and I should part with him with very great regret, but being sincerely attached to him I consider his advancement, not my interest or convenience, in this application; for he, Dr. Greenhow, enjoys my fullest confidence and you will, if you take him, find him every way worthy of yours, and well calculated by his manners, deportment and knowledge of the world to aid you in the lighter but very necessary duties of your station, as well as to perform those of a more important kind with which you may entrust him.

Two or three apples of discord have, as you will perceive by the papers, been thrown in both houses—each of them sufficient to create a warfare that will last during a session.

I am, my dear Sir, with high regard,

With what feelings Mr. Buchanan left his home in Lancaster and proceeded to Washington, and thence to New York to take passage for Liverpool, may be gathered from the following portions of his diary:

I left Lancaster in the stage early in the morning for Washington and arrived in Baltimore the same evening. Although my feelings are not very easily excited, yet my impressions on this day were solemn and sad. I was leaving a city where I had spent the best years of my life, where I had been uniformly a popular favorite, and, above all, where I had many good and true friends who had never abandoned me, under the most trying circumstances. Among these people I had acquired a competence for a man of moderate wishes, and I think I may say without vanity my professional and personal character stood very high. I was about to embark in a new pursuit, and one in which my heart never was; to leave the most free and happy country on earth for a despotism more severe than any [other] which exists in Europe. These gloomy reflections often came athwart my mind. They were succeeded, however, by a sense of reliance on that good Providence which hitherto had blessed and sustained me, and by a conviction that I was about to go upon an important mission in which I might be made the instrument in His hands of rendering important services to my country.

I set sail from New York for Liverpool on board the “Silas Richards,” Captain Henry Holdridge, accompanied by Lieutenant John W. Barry, of the U. S. army, as private secretary, and Edward Landrick, a mulatto servant. I suffered from sea-sickness during nearly the whole voyage. Our fellow-passengers were kind and agreeable. Dr. Hosack of New York 137gave Charles Archibald, Esq., the son of the Attorney-General of Nova Scotia, a letter of introduction to me, which he delivered on ship-board. I found him to be an amiable and intelligent young gentleman, and enjoyed much pleasure in his society. There was a Mr. Walter—an Englishman—from London, on board, a man of general information, who was always ready and always willing to defend all the institutions of his own country, whether good or bad. He would have been a very agreeable companion, had he been willing to converse instead of making speeches. Notwithstanding, he was warm-hearted and kind, and the impression he made upon me was quite favorable. In addition to these passengers, we had a Mr. Clapham from Leeds, Mr. Stuart from Pittsburg, Mr. and Mrs. McGee and Mr. Moller of New York, Mr. McBride of Dublin, Mr. Morris of Brockville, U. C., and his sister-in-law, Mrs. Morris, from —— in the same province, Mr. Osmond, a preacher of the Society of Friends, from Indiana, going to London to attend the yearly meeting, Mrs. and Miss Taylor of New York.

The captain was an excellent seaman, a gentleman in his manners, and possessed much more information than could have been expected from one in his profession who had crossed the Atlantic eighty-eight times. We saw Cape Clear, the southwestern point of Ireland on Sunday, the 22d; but were detained by head winds for several days on that coast. Several of us had determined to go on board a fishing boat and land at Cork, and proceed from thence to Dublin, but were prevented by adverse winds from approaching the shore. We arrived in Liverpool on Thursday, the 3d May, about 12 o’clock (noon), after a passage of 25 days. When the pilot came on board, he informed us that Liverpool was clear of cholera, but that it was raging both in Cork and Dublin. We took lodgings at the Adelphi Hotel. The passengers on this day gave Captain Holdridge a dinner at “The Star and Garter,” at which I presided. Mr. Brown and Mr. Ogden, our consul, were present as guests.

Mr. Brown of Liverpool took me about in his carriage and showed me the town of Liverpool. The appearance of the people, their manners and their language are so similar to those of New York that I could scarcely realize I was in England. The brick of which the houses are built when new have a dirty yellow appearance and the coal dust soon gives them a darker hue. This imparts a gloomy appearance to the town and deprives it of that light and cheerful hue which we experience in Philadelphia and New York. It is a place of great wealth and vast commerce, although the approach to it is tedious and difficult and altogether impracticable at low tide. The Mersey is but a small river compared with those in America. Its docks are admirable and very extensive, covering a space actually under water of between eighty and ninety English acres. The cemetery is well worthy of observation. Mr. Barry and myself dined with Mr. Brown at his country house about three miles from Liverpool. It is beautifully situated, the grounds around it highly improved, and both its external and internal appearance 138prove the wealth and the taste of its opulent and hospitable owner.^[29] Francis B. Ogden, Esq., the American consul, and several other gentlemen were of the party. We spent a very pleasant afternoon and evening.

Mr. Ogden has wandered much over the world. He is an agreeable and warm-hearted fellow and something, I should suppose, of what we call “a gimcrack” in America. He has given me a cipher of his own invention which he says is the best in the world—and that it may be continually changed, so that my secretary may decipher one letter and yet know nothing about any other. During our stay at Liverpool we received many attentions. We were particularly indebted to Mr. Crary and Mr. Carnes, for whom I had letters of introduction from my friend John S. Crary of New York. I could not help observing at this place what a strong impression the successful operations of our Government had produced on the minds of Englishmen. Our national character now stands high, notwithstanding the efforts which have been made to traduce it.

Left Liverpool on the railroad, and arrived at Manchester—a distance of thirty miles—in one hour and twenty-five minutes. There are two tunnels, one of about 2200 yards, under the city, to communicate with the vessels at the docks, the other about 200 yards, passing under a hill in the suburbs.

The following letter to his youngest brother, lately the Rector of Oxford Church, Philadelphia, gives his first impressions of England:

My Dear Brother:—

We left Liverpool on Saturday morning last and arrived in this city on Tuesday. On our way, after passing over the railroad to Manchester, we visited Birmingham, Kenilworth Castle, Warwick Castle, Stratford-upon-Avon, Blenheim and Oxford. Every portion of the country that we have seen is in the highest state of cultivation, and its appearance at this season of the year is delightful. One thing, however, which must strike every American traveller, is the mercenary spirit of all that class of people with whom he comes in contact on the road. No person performs any office for you, no matter how slight, without expecting to be paid. Indeed travelling and living here are very extravagant, and not the slightest part of the trouble and expense are the perquisites which it is expected you will give to servants of all kinds, post-boys, coachmen, etc.

I have visited the cathedrals of Oxford and Westminster Abbey—two of the finest specimens of Gothic architecture in England. I have not time to 139give you a description of either. They are gloomy, venerable piles, and give birth to many solemn associations. They recall past ages to your view, and raise the mighty dead of former generations to be your companions. As places of worship, however, they must be very damp and uncomfortable. In Ireland the people have ceased to pay tithes. They submit to have their articles seized, but the proctors can find no purchasers for such articles at any price. The consequence has been that nearly all payments have ceased. This country is at present in a very distracted state. Never since the days of Charles I. has there been such an excitement among the mass of the people. What will be the event, God only knows. The king [William IV.], who this day week was one of the most popular monarchs who ever sat upon any throne, is now detested or rather despised by the people. His refusal to create the number of peers necessary to carry the Reform Bill, and his alleged hypocrisy throughout the whole proceeding, have occasioned this change in public sentiment. I should not be astonished at a revolution; but yet I hope and trust that the people may obtain their just rights without resorting to such a dreadful alternative. The Church is not popular. Its rich livings are conferred upon the younger branches of noble houses more with a view of making a provision for their temporal wants than of providing for the spiritual welfare of the people committed to their charge. The best course is pursued in our own country, where men choose the ministry from conscientious motives, and the people provide for them voluntarily. The present system of tithes cannot continue much longer in this country without some modification, unless there should be a much stronger government than exists at present. Indeed, from everything I have seen, although this is a country of vast wealth and resources, and of very advanced civilization, I thank my God that I was born an American rather than an Englishman.

I expect, God willing, to leave this place for St. Petersburg on Friday next, the day of the sailing of the steam packet, and I hope to reach the end of my journey on or about the first of June. I am anxious once more to feel settled. From all the information I can receive the diplomatic circle of St. Petersburg is a very agreeable one, and the Emperor and Court entertain the most friendly feelings towards our country. Prince Lieven, the Russian ambassador to this country, has been very polite to me. Although I do not anticipate much happiness during my continuance abroad, yet I have no doubt, with the blessing of Providence, I shall be content. You need not expect to hear from me again until I shall reach St. Petersburg. Please to send this letter to mother, and drop a few lines to Maria. Write to me often. I feel very anxious to hear from George. I trust in Heaven that he may be restored to health. You will perceive by the papers that the cholera has almost entirely disappeared from this city; indeed, it never was very formidable here. I was at Covent Garden Theatre on Thursday evening, and saw Young’s Tragedy of Revenge performed. Mr. Young, the most celebrated tragedian of England, performed the part of Zanga. It was a most masterly performance, and excited the deepest interest. Although I have always 140admired that play, I never felt all its force and beauty until that night. Give my love to mother, Jane, Harriet, George, Mr. Lane and all the family, and believe me ever to be

The Duke of Wellington is Premier; the members of his Cabinet not yet known.

Mr. Buchanan went from London to Hamburg by a packet, and thence made the overland journey to St. Petersburg. I find only the following traces of his travel:

The appearance of Hamburg is calculated to make a favorable impression. It is situated on the northern bank of the Elbe, the river here running a little to the north of west. The old part of the town along and near to the river has a very antiquated appearance. Most of the houses are built with their ends fronting on the street, and they are composed of wooden frame-work, the interstices being filled up with brick. In this respect they resemble the ancient houses of Lancaster. Many of these houses are three stories, and some of them more in height up to the square—the gable end, and above it, contains one and two and three stories with windows on the street until it comes to a point ornamented with various figures.

The new part of the city is beautiful. In the northern part of it there is a small lake, called the “Binnen Alster,” nearly square, and about a quarter of a mile on each side. Around this lake, except on the northern side, there are ranges of very fine houses built in the modern style, at a considerable distance from it, so as to leave room not only for the street, but for spacious walks shaded by trees, with benches placed at convenient distances. Still further to the north there is a larger lake communicating with the former called the “Grosse Alster.” All around this lake and along the small stream which feeds it there are shaded walks, public gardens and grass plots laid out with much taste, and kept in perfect repair. The graveyard in the midst of them shows that man’s long home may be made a subject of attraction for the living; and my own feelings taught me that those who are led to the place appointed for all living, from curiosity, may leave it under solemn and useful impressions.

I called this morning upon John Cuthbert, Esq., our consul, and left at the house of Mr. Gossler, a senator of Hamburg, a letter of introduction, with my card, which I had received from his brother at New York. Mr. Cuthbert called with me on Monsieur Bacheracht, the consul-general from Russia, who was sick in bed, and I left at his house the letter from Prince Lieven. We also called on Mr. Parish, but did not see him.

141This is one of the ancient free cities of Germany. It is governed by a Senate, consisting of twenty-four members, composed of lawyers and merchants, each one-half. The Senate fills up its own vacancies as they occur. It also elects four of its own members burgesses, in whom the executive authority is vested. The deliberations of the Senate are in secret. The duties on goods imported are but one-half per cent. ad valorem, and the other taxes upon the people are very light. They appear to be contented and happy, and I have yet seen but one beggar on the streets. Indeed their language and appearance strongly reminded me of Lancaster. The Senate also elects four Syndicks, but not of their own body.

According to their laws no foreigner can be a resident merchant here, unless he goes through the forms and submits to the expense and inconvenience of becoming a burgher. Mr. Cuthbert claimed for an American naturalized citizen this privilege under our treaty with Hamburg, without becoming a burgher, and after some correspondence on the subject it was granted. This is a privilege which the English have never yet obtained. I advised Mr. Cuthbert to send the correspondence to the Secretary of State.

The outlet of the lakes into the river furnishes a water-power sufficient to turn several mills, and water for a canal which is very useful in connecting the river with the upper part of the city. It is strange that not a single dock has been erected on the river by this ancient city.

The constitution of Hamburg, although far from being free in the just acceptation of the term, has secured to the citizens enviable advantages, compared with many of the other states of Germany.

We dine with Mr. Gossler to-morrow.

(Here follows a minute account of the coins in common use in Hamburg.)

We dined with Mr. Gossler, the son, in the country; his father, to whom we had the letter, being now in England. Our host had resided in Boston, and about three years ago married Miss Bray of that city. She is related to the Elliott family, and is a sprightly, pleasant woman, who talks very well. Besides our host and hostess, the company consisted of Mr. William Gossler, their uncle, an old bachelor; Mr. Charles H. Carnegy, a young Scotchman who came in the packet with us from London; Mr. Wainwright, from Boston, also our fellow-passenger; Mr. Barry, and myself. We spent a very agreeable afternoon and evening. We received an invitation from Mr. Richard Parish to dine with him on Sunday at his country place, which we were obliged to decline, intending to leave for Lubeck on Saturday.

In the morning, we visited Altona, a Danish town in Holstein adjoining Hamburg, and below it on the river. Its appearance is similar to that of the old part of Hamburg, though it contains some fine modern houses. The 142public walks are also pleasant here. The population is said to be 25,000. In the afternoon, we ascended the steeple of St. Michael’s, and had a fine view of the city. It is 480 feet in height. The church is a fine building. I observed in it an altar, at some distance from the pulpit, with an image above it of our Saviour on the cross. This in a Lutheran Church was new to me.

Before I enter upon the business of the mission, some of the private letters which Mr. Buchanan wrote to his friends at home, during the summer of 1832, will be found to contain matters of interest. Whatever other accomplishments he possessed or wanted, he certainly wrote very agreeable letters. One of the first persons to whom he wrote, after his arrival at St. Petersburg, was General Jackson.

Dear General:—

You will, ere this reaches you, have heard of my arrival in this capital, through the Department of State. Certainly it is not the place I should select for my residence, though it may be justly termed a city of palaces. The climate is healthy, but very cold. Indeed it can scarcely be said that summer has yet commenced. Their winter continues about seven months. At this season there is literally no night. I feel confident I could read common print at 12 P. M. I use no candles. The Americans and English here say they suffer more from the heat than from the cold during winter. All the houses have double casements, double windows, and very thick walls, and they are heated by stoves to a high degree of temperature. The Russians still wear their cloaks in the streets. The great objection which an American must feel to a residence in this country does not arise from the climate, though that is bad enough; it is because here there is no freedom of the Press, no public opinion, and but little political conversation, and that very much guarded. In short, we live in the calm of despotism. And what makes this situation much more unpleasant to me is, that from some cause or other, I know not yet what, this mission seldom receives any letters or newspapers from the United States. I beg that you would take up this subject yourself, and then it will be attended to. But this by the way.

It must be admitted, however, if we can believe the concurrent opinion of all the foreigners resident here with whom I have conversed, that the Emperor Nicholas is one of the best of despots. As a man of excellent private character, as a husband, a father, a brother, and a friend, his life presents a fit example for all his subjects. But still he is a despot. But little occurred on my presentation to his Majesty worthy of repetition, except what is contained 143in the despatch. He told me he had one American in his service as his aide—that was Mr. Munroe; that he was not then in St. Petersburg, having gone on board one of the ships in the fleet for the purpose of making a campaign (for exercise and instruction, I presume), and that he intended to be transferred from the military to the naval service.

The empress talked very freely. She spoke on several subjects, and with great rapidity. Amongst other things she observed we were wise in America not to involve ourselves in the foolish troubles of Europe; but she added that we had troubles enough among ourselves at home, and alluded to our difficulties with some of the Southern States. I endeavored in a few words to explain this subject to her; but she still persisted in expressing the same opinion, and, of course, I would not argue the point. The truth is, that the people of Europe, and more especially those of this country, cannot be made to understand the operations of our Government. Upon hearing of any severe conflicts of opinion in the United States, they believe what they wish, that a revolution may be the consequence. God forbid that the Union should be in any danger! If unfortunate events should occur tending to destroy the influence of our example, constitutional liberty throughout the rest of the world would receive a blow from which it might never recover. In making these remarks, I do not mean to state that the Russian government are unfriendly to the people of the United States; on the contrary, I believe they prefer us decidedly either to the English or French; but yet they must attribute to our example the existence of those liberal principles in Europe which give them so much trouble. Upon the whole, my interview with the empress was quite agreeable.

There are three ambassadors at this court: Lord Heytesbury, the English; the Marshal Duke of Treviso (Mortier), the French; and Count Figlemont, the Austrian; and a number of ministers plenipotentiary of my own grade. In point of rank I am at the tail of the list, and I should be very sorry to suppose I would ever reach the head. The rule upon this subject, however, is wholly unexceptionable: the minister who has been longest here ranks the highest in his own grade. The Diplomatic Corps have received me very kindly. This I may attribute to the high character my country is everywhere acquiring. Your foreign policy has had no small influence on public opinion throughout Europe. It is supposed Marshal Mortier is not very agreeable to this government: he is the officer who blew up the Kremlin.

I have taken a comfortable and well-furnished house in a beautiful situation fronting on the Neva, to which I expect to remove next week. My family will consist of Mr. J. Randolph Clay [Secretary of the Legation], whom I have invited to live with me, Lieutenant Barry [private secretary], and myself. My expenses will be great, but I shall endeavor to keep them within my outfit and salary.

From an examination of the correspondence between Mr. Clay and the Department I fear I shall have difficulties in the settlement of my accounts. It was not possible for him with the most rigid economy to exist as chargé 144d’affaires upon his salary, had he received all to which he was entitled, and yet he has received but about $1880 per annum. So far as I can understand the subject, the difficulty has arisen solely from the circumstance that we are authorized to draw on Amsterdam, and not on London. Surely this circumstance cannot change the amount of salary to which a minister is entitled by law, nor ought Mr. Clay to receive less at a more expensive court than Mr. Vail receives in England. Mr. Livingston told me it would make no difference to me whether I drew on Amsterdam or London, and this may eventually be the case; but I am very anxious to avoid the difficulty of having a troublesome account to settle with the Department. I should esteem it, therefore, a particular favor, if it be just, that you would authorize me to draw on London. Every difficulty on this subject would be removed, if we were allowed five rubles here for a dollar, which is the manner in which our consul settles his accounts; and I should suppose, from a communication received by Mr. Clay from my friend Mr. Pleasonton, that he now believes this to be correct. Pardon me for thus troubling you with my own affairs......

My Dear Brother:—

I received yours of the 4th of June on the 19th inst. It contains melancholy information. I trust each one of us may be able to say in relation to ourselves “God’s will be done!” I fear there is but little hope for poor George. May his latter end be peace! God grant that he may recover! ——’s marriage must have been a gloomy ceremony. I hope, however, that joy may succeed to gloom, and that her marriage may be happy. I fear that her husband’s health is not good. I would thank you to make it a point to wish them happiness in my name. May they be united in spirit here and be heirs of glory hereafter!

From some unaccountable neglect either at the Department of State or the Legation in London, I have received no newspapers from the United States since my arrival in this city except those which came in the vessels with your two letters of the 3d of May and 4th of June; and these letters are all I have received from our country except one from Mr. Reynolds of Lancaster. I have thus been entirely deprived of the pleasure of hearing anything from my relations but what you have communicated. I shall endeavor to correct this evil; but in the meantime it would be better to send letters intended for me to Mr. Crary or some other friend in New York who would enclose them to our chargé in London (Mr. Vail). I presume no ship will leave America for St. Petersburg after you shall have received this letter until early in the next spring. I hope my friends in New York will not neglect to send me newspapers by every such opportunity.

I cannot complain of my situation here, though it is not very agreeable. The press is under so strict a censorship that nothing is published except what the government pleases. Every avenue through which liberal opinions 145might enter this empire is carefully closed; and in fact but few even of the higher classes of society know much of our country or its institutions. An American minister, therefore, to this court enjoys but few of the advantages he would derive from the character of his country either in England or France. Notwithstanding, I have been treated very civilly, particularly by the Diplomatic Corps and the English, who are numerous here. We have an Episcopal church, of which a Mr. Law is the rector. He is said to be a good man, and is a tolerably good preacher; I have heard him twice. The service of the English Church is very long; I think the retrenchments made in it by the Church in the United States have been very judicious. There is also a Methodist church here, which I have not visited.

The higher classes among the Russians in St. Petersburg have, I fear, but little religion; and the common people are very ignorant and superstitious. Although the Greek differs from the Latin Church in regard to the use of images, yet they cross themselves here, with much apparent devotion, before consecrated pictures, which are put up everywhere throughout the city; and in passing the churches. Among this class there is no honesty; they will always cheat you if they can. To this rule I have not met with a single exception. Although I am far from believing that a Puritanical observance of Sunday is required of us, yet I confess I have been shocked with its profanation in this country. The emperor and empress, who are models of correct moral deportment in other respects, give their balls and grand fêtes on Sunday evening; and I am confident it has never entered their thoughts that in this respect they were acting incorrectly.

My domestic arrangements are very comfortable. My house is excellent and very well furnished. It has the benefit of a fine view of the Neva, and a southern exposure, which in this land of frost and snow is a great advantage. We have not yet had one day which could be called summer. The weather has been cool, and indeed the season has been more remarkable than any which the oldest inhabitants have ever experienced. In common seasons they have about six weeks of very warm weather. It is healthy and my health is good.

Mr. Clay and Mr. Barry are very agreeable young gentlemen. The latter desires to be remembered to you. The mulatto man I brought with me from the United States is a valuable servant. I know not what I should do without him.

Give my kindest love to George. I have written to him since my arrival here. Give my love to mother, Jane, Maria, Harriet and all the family. I have not yet written to Maria; I shall do so soon. Should you be in New York on the receipt of this, remember me to my friends there. Praying to God that we may meet again in health and prosperity in our native land, I remain

My Dear Sir:—

Here I am, pleasantly situated in my own house, which commands a delightful view of the Neva and all the vessels which enter this port. The city is magnificent and beautiful. The buildings, both public and private, have been constructed upon a grand scale; but the people are ignorant and barbarous. With the exception of the merchants and a few others in the commercial cities, there is no intermediate rank between the nobleman and the slave. The serfs, however, are not unkindly treated. They are attached to the soil, and in general are not bound to labor for their masters more than three days in the week. Besides they are furnished with land which they cultivate for themselves. No one can be here for a month without being fully convinced that these people are wholly unfit to take any share in the government, and it is doubtless the policy of the emperor and nobles to keep them in this state of ignorance. Throughout Germany the people have generally received the rudiments of education and are fit for free institutions; but here despotism must yet prevail for a long time. How happy ought we to be in America! Would that we knew our own happiness! Coming abroad can teach an American no other lesson but to love his country, its institutions and its laws better, much better than he did before.

The emperor and the empress in their domestic relations are worthy of all praise. In this respect their example is excellent, and I am inclined to believe it has had a favorable effect upon the conduct of their nobles. Still that is far from being of the best character.

From my own observation and experience since I left home, I do not think a wise American ought to desire a foreign mission. For my own part I should greatly prefer a seat in the Senate to any mission which the Government could confer upon me. I trust, however, that I shall be instrumental during my sojourn here in benefiting my country. If my labors in accomplishing the objects of my mission were closed I should be very desirous of returning home; but I shall remain as long as duty requires, and endeavor to be content.

There has been great neglect in the Department of State or somewhere else in forwarding my letters and newspapers. I have not yet received a single newspaper, except a few which were sent me by some friends direct from New York, and the two or three letters that have reached me refer me to the papers for political news. This being the case, I charge you by our mutual friendship to write to me often and give me all the news. Please to send your letters to Campbell P. White or some other friend in New York, not to the Department of State; and direct them to the care of Aaron Vail, Esquire, our chargé in London. Perhaps it might be better to enclose them to him. He is a very good fellow and will be attentive in forwarding them. I was much pleased with him in London.

147It seems Van Buren has been nominated by the Baltimore Convention;^[30] but Pennsylvania has not yet yielded her pretensions in favor of Mr. Wilkins. I fervently hope that such a course will be pursued by our State as not to endanger its vote in favor of General Jackson.

I have been well treated since my arrival by the Diplomatic Corps generally; but particularly so by Lord Heytesbury the English, and the Duke of Treviso the French ambassador, and by the Swedish and Hanoverian ministers. So far as regards my personal feelings I am very sorry that Lord H. has been replaced by Lord Durham. The latter does not promise to be so popular as the former. I have not yet learned to submit patiently to the drudgery of etiquette. It is the most formal court in Europe and one must conform to its rules. Foreign ministers must drive a carriage and four with a postilion, and have a servant behind decked out in a more queer dress than our militia generals. This servant is called a “chasseur” and has in his chapeau a plume of feathers. To this plume, as it passes, the detachment of soldiers present arms, and individual soldiers take off their hats. How absurd all this appears to a republican! It was with some degree of apprehension that I took a house on the north side of the river, although by far the best I could find; because no foreign minister had resided on this side before; but it has succeeded, and since I have set the example I have no doubt it will be followed by others, as it has many advantages over the opposite shore.

Let me hear how you are succeeding at the law. Be not discouraged. Persevere and with the blessing of Heaven your success is certain. Remember me kindly to Mr. Paulding, Mr. Patterson, and all my other friends whom you may chance to meet. If you all think as often of me as I do of you, I shall be freshly remembered.

Dear Brother:—

I received your very agreeable letter of the 15th July on the 4th September. I was very anxious indeed to hear from poor George, and regret to learn that which I have for some time apprehended, that we can indulge but little hope of his final recovery. Still it is a great satisfaction to know that he does not feel alarmed at the prospect of death. I trust his philosophy may be of the genuine Christian character and that he may have disarmed death of its sting by saving faith in the Redeemer of mankind. Still hope will linger and is unwilling to abandon us when so near and dear a relative is the object.

I congratulate you upon your admission to the ministry and trust that you may be an instrument in doing much good to your fellow-men......

148The last advices from America have brought us most distressing news concerning the progress of the cholera. We have heard that it was subsiding in New York, but that it was making great ravages in Philadelphia. God grant that it may not have extended into the interior of Pennsylvania. I am now very anxious for news from America and expect it by the next steamboat in a few days. There have been a few cases of cholera in St. Petersburg during the present season. As the newspapers here publish nothing upon the subject and there are no reports from the police made public there has been scarcely any alarm. Indeed I suppose that a large majority of the people know nothing of its existence. Dr. Le Fevre, the physician of the British Embassy, told me to-day that in the course of his practice, which is very extensive, he had met no case for the last two weeks. Those places in Europe which have suffered from the disease one year, generally have experienced a slight return of it the next.

I think this climate will be favorable to my health, at least in regard to the bilious complaints with which of late years I have been so much afflicted. My life glides on smoothly here. The place is becoming more agreeable to me as my acquaintance extends; yet I still feel like a stranger in a strange land. I have so far mastered the French language as to be able to read and understand it without much difficulty. It will be some time, however, before I shall speak it fluently.

The Diplomatic Corps yesterday attended a Te Deum at the Church of St. Alexander Nevsky. It was the day of that saint, who is the greatest in the Russian calendar. The service was very magnificent and imposing; though the tones of an organ would have made it grander. These are not used in the Greek churches. The emperor was there and appeared to be very devout. He often crossed himself, and in one part of the ceremony kissed the hand of the archbishop. Think of the proudest and most powerful potentate on earth still continuing to do so much reverence to the clergy! Among other miracles, this saint, it is said, rode up the Neva on a grindstone. After the service had concluded in the church, we were present at the erection of a granite column to the memory of the late Emperor Alexander—the largest and heaviest which has ever been erected, it is said, in ancient or modern times. There were 2000 men and an immense quantity of machinery employed.

I say again, rely upon the divine blessing and your own judgment in all things, and I shall be content; but let it be taken coolly and not under the influence of the idle talk of others. Settle in no place merely for the sake of a settlement. You shall not be at any loss for money. Give my love to mother and all the family, and believe me to be

Dear General:—

I avail myself of the present opportunity of writing to you with the more eagerness, as I know not when I shall again enjoy that pleasure. The last steamboat for the season will leave here in about a fortnight, and after that period no safe opportunity may soon offer. To put my letters in the post-office here would be most certainly to expose them to the Russian government; indeed they scarcely think it necessary to do up the seals decently of those which I receive.

Both the emperor and Count Nesselrode have returned to the capital. I may therefore expect a final answer to our propositions in a few days. I dined with the count yesterday, who treated me with marked attention. I suppose he thought it incumbent on him to do so, as it was the first time he had invited me. The dinner was given to the French ambassador, the Duke of Treviso, who leaves here to-day in the steamboat on leave of absence. Whether he will ever return is, I think, doubtful. I do not express this opinion, because I believe there is danger of immediate hostilities between the two countries; on the contrary, I am satisfied they will remain at peace whilst Louis Philippe shall continue on the throne and pursue his present course of policy. How long the present state of things may last in France is the question. I think you may rest satisfied that Russia will not go to war for the King of Holland. She will suffer France and England to carry into effect the decrees of the London conference against him. This, however, will cause much irritation here and in Prussia. Indeed, from my intercourse with the Russian nobility, I believe a war with France to preserve Belgium for the King of Holland would be highly popular. The emperor, however, has, I am almost confident, determined it shall not be for the present. This is wise, for I am persuaded that Russia has not yet sufficiently recovered from the four wars which she has sustained since the accession of the present emperor, to enable her to be as formidable and efficient as the world believes her. As long, therefore, as things remain as they are in France, there will not be war. An attempt on her part to interfere forcibly with either Germany or Poland would instantly change the aspect of affairs.

News of the death of King Ferdinand of Spain arrived here a few days ago, but has since been contradicted. In the mean time it produced a great sensation. It is considered that his death without a son must necessarily produce a civil war in that ill-fated country, and perhaps make the rest of Europe parties. His imprudent abolition of the Salique Law in favor of his daughter, it is thought, will not be submitted to by Don Carlos, in favor of whose succession the whole of the Apostolical party will be found ranged. The government here ardently desires the defeat of Don Pedro. Indeed any change in Europe in favor of liberal principles would be disagreeable to them, 150and they even occasionally publish ill-natured articles concerning the United States. This you will perceive from the last St. Petersburg Journal, a file of which I shall send by Mr. Mitchell, for whom I have obtained a courier’s passport. The articles contained in newspapers here have the more meaning, as the press is under a most rigid censorship. I am well acquainted, however, with the chief censor, Count Laval, who is one of those noblemen who have been the most polite to me, and I shall take some opportunity of conversing with him on this subject.

England is, I think, fast losing her consideration on the Continent. The present ministry are not believed to possess much ability, at least for conducting foreign affairs; and they have so many embarrassing domestic questions on their hands independently of the national debt, that they cannot without the most urgent necessity involve the country in a war. They have negotiated and paid for making Belgium a virtual province of France—Greece of Russia; and, I think, they are in a fair way of losing their commercial advantages in Portugal by an affected neutrality between the hopeful brothers of the house of Braganza, for which they receive no credit, at least in this country. Although Lord Durham was treated with the most distinguished attention by the emperor, he received almost none from the nobility; and they indulge in a bitterness of remark both against him and his country which shows what are their feelings towards England. Besides, he was an eccentric nobleman, and is the subject of as many ridiculous stories as my predecessor. I am sincerely glad that he has in some degree taken the place of the latter in the gossip of this city. But this is a subject to which I would not advert in writing to any other person. They have no free press here; but they make up for the want of it in private scandal in relation to all subjects on which they can talk with safety. The present British minister, Mr. Bligh, is a plain, agreeable, and unassuming gentleman, with whom my relations are of the most friendly character.

Within the last six weeks I have had the good fortune to make the acquaintance of several noble families of the very highest rank, and I am beginning to receive many attentions from that class. Their coldness and jealousy towards strangers generally are fast disappearing in relation to myself. Some accidental circumstances which it would be useless to detail have contributed much to this result. I consider this a fortunate circumstance, as the nobility exercise great influence in this country. I think in my despatch of the 9th of August last I spoke rather too harshly of them as a class; and although, with a few exceptions, I by no means admire them, yet this shows how dangerous it is to form opinions too hastily. The influence of the example of the present emperor and empress, in the correctness of their private deportment, is doing their nobility much good.

Too much care cannot be taken in selecting a minister for this court. Indeed it would be difficult to find many suitable persons in our country for this mission. In London and in Paris, our ministers enjoy the consideration to which they are entitled from the exalted character of their country; but 151here the character of the country must depend in a considerable degree upon that of the minister. The principles of the American Government, the connection between our greatness and prosperity as a nation, and the freedom of our institutions, are a sealed book in regard to the Russians. Their own press dare publish nothing upon the subject, and all foreign papers, unless those of the most illiberal character, are prohibited. The higher classes here must in a great degree receive their information concerning our country from our minister. This sufficiently points out what ought to be his qualifications, and I regret my own deficiency in some important particulars. Great talents are by no means so requisite as an easy address, insinuating manners, and a perfect knowledge of the French language. (In the latter I have already made considerable advances.) Above all he ought to have a genuine American heart, in which I know I am not deficient, always anxious to seize every favorable opportunity, and many such occur, of making an impression in favor of his country. There is one great disadvantage, however, under which a minister here labors; and that is, the total inadequacy of the salary. These people are fond of extravagance and show, and have not the least taste for Republican simplicity and economy. In order that a minister may hold a high place in their esteem, he must be able to return their civilities. They judge much by appearances. The want of this reciprocity will be attributed to the meanness of the minister or that of his country, or both. Even the representative of his Sardinian Majesty receives $16,000 per annum. Now if I had $100,000 per annum, I would not pursue any course of conduct in this respect which I should be ashamed to exhibit to my countrymen; but surely if they were aware that their minister could not return with Republican simplicity and dignity the civilities which he cannot avoid receiving without giving offence, they would consent to an increase of salary. I think $15,000 would be sufficient for the purpose without the outfit. Perhaps it would be better to fix it at $13,000, with the expense of a furnished house. At all events, I must give some large dinners.

I make these remarks without feeling the slightest personal interest in them, because nothing short of your express commands would induce me to remain here longer than two years from the time of my arrival; and I trust something may occur to justify my return to my native land within a shorter period. I feel, however, if I had such a salary I could leave a much more favorable impression of my country behind me. By the bye, I do not know yet what I am to receive; if I should have to lose the exchange between this and Amsterdam at its present rate, my salary will but little exceed $8,000. If ever a change shall be made the salary of the minister here ought to be fixed in silver roubles.

I have lately seen much of Mr. Politica, who is still attached to the Foreign Office. His feelings towards our country appear to be very friendly. From his conversation, I have reason to anticipate a favorable issue to our negotiations; but I shall not allow myself to confide much in unofficial conversations. I have no doubt that they feel it would be their interest to 152negotiate with us; and they appreciate highly the advantages of our trade; yet they entertain such strong prejudices against commercial treaties, and there are so many wheels within wheels in the complex system of their policy that it is safest not to expect a treaty with too much confidence. I have no doubt, should they conclude one with us, England would insist upon being placed on the same footing. Besides, Count Cancrene, the Minister of Finance, is understood to be opposed to all commercial treaties.

I ought to state that I believe the omission to invite Mr. Barry to the reviews was unintentional, and Count Nesselrode expressed his sorrow to Baron Krudener for the neglect before the latter left this city.

I shall soon be looking with great anxiety for news concerning our elections. I read your veto message with very great pleasure. Although rather inclined to be friendly to the re-charter of the Bank of the United States, yet I am now free to say, I should vote for no bill for that purpose liable to the objections of that which passed both Houses of Congress. I am glad to observe the spirit which seems to animate the Republican party of Pennsylvania, in relation to this subject. I entertain no apprehension concerning the result of your election; but I wish to see you come into office for a second period with that triumphant majority which you are entitled to receive, both from the wisdom and success of your foreign and domestic policy. I cannot think that the unnatural union between the Clay men and the Anti-masons will reduce your majority; as I believe the mass of both these parties is honest and cannot approve such a political partnership.

Pardon me for not taking the trouble of correcting and re-writing this long and rambling letter. I should do so did I not know it was only intended for friendly eyes. I now receive my newspapers with tolerable regularity, through the kindness of my friends in Hamburg and Lubeck. This regulation will cease at the close of the present month, when the steamboats will be discontinued. Please to present my best respects to the members of your Cabinet. I have been for some time expecting a letter from Major Barry. Remember me kindly to your family, and believe me to be, wherever my lot may be cast,

My Dear Brother:—

I received yours of the 12th August dated Union, Va., on the 2d instant. It gave me a gloomy picture of the state of poor George’s health and has deprived me of the last ray of hope in relation to his recovery. Indeed whilst I am writing this I have too much cause to apprehend that your next will announce that he has bidden an eternal adieu to this vain and transitory 153world. I had conceived the highest hopes of his future eminence and usefulness. His talents were of the first order, his manners were popular and his principles were, I believe, perfectly pure. Alas! that his sun, which rose so brightly and promised such a brilliant day, should so soon be extinguished. Such seems to have been the inscrutable decree of an all-wise Providence. May our dear mother and may we all be enabled to say, “Father, Thy will be done.” I feel the deepest gratitude towards Dr. Semmes for his kindness. My acquaintance with him was but slight, but I shall make it a point, should I ever have an opportunity, of manifesting to him how much I have been penetrated by his kindness. In the meantime do not fail to make my sentiments known to him. It is probable that ere long I shall address him a letter returning him my thanks. You can readily conceive what anxiety I shall feel until the arrival of your next. I trust it may have pleased Providence to enable poor George to reach Mercersburg.

My time here is gliding on not unpleasantly. When I reflect upon my past life and the many merciful dispensations of which I have been the subject, I cannot be too thankful to the Almighty. This land of despotism is not the place where an American minister ought to have expected many friends, particularly as the Russian nobility have but little disposition to cultivate the acquaintance of strangers; it has yet so happened that several of the very highest order have shown me much kindness, and I have some reason to believe I shall be a favorite. The English merchants, who are numerous, wealthy and respectable, have been very civil, and the Diplomatic Corps have paid me all the attention I could desire. Still I shall be happy when the day arrives that I can with honor leave this elevated station and return to my native land.

The ladies here, as they are almost everywhere, are the best part of society. Many of them and their children speak English very well, whose husbands cannot speak a word of that language. There is a Princess Tscherbatoff here with whom I have become very intimate. She has a charming family and they have travelled much through Europe. She is a lady of uncommon intellect, brilliant accomplishments, and yet preserves great personal attractions. I mention her name for the purpose of introducing a circumstance somewhat singular. By some means or other she got hold of the “Pilgrim’s Progress,” and it has evidently produced a considerable effect upon her feelings. She has read several of the old English devotional books and likes to converse upon the subject of religion. It is strange that my first and most intimate acquaintance with a Russian Princess should have been with one conversant with the writings of such men as John Bunyan and Isaac Watts. I doubt whether there is another like her in this respect throughout the Empire. She is a member of the Greek Church and attached to it; but informs me that she often goes to hear a Mr. Neal preach, who is, I believe, a kind of English Methodist. Her religion, and I sincerely believe she possesses it, does not prevent her from being very gay and entering into the fashionable amusements of her class. There is no estimating the good 154which an able and pious man may be instrumental in performing, not only in his own generation, but long after he has been gathered to his fathers.

The weather is now about as cold here as it is in Pennsylvania towards the close of November. We have already had a slight fall of snow and several severe frosts. In going out to dinner in the country on the last day of September, I observed a very large oats field in shock. Very little of it had been taken in. You may judge of the nature of the climate from this circumstance, though this season has been remarkably cold and damp. I can now readily believe, what I have often heard since my arrival, that I should suffer less from cold in this country than in my own. They regulate the heat of the houses by a thermometer; and their stoves are so admirably contrived that they are large and beautiful ornaments, and consume but very little wood compared with those of our own country. My health still continues to be good, thank God!

Give my kindest love to my mother—how often do I now think of her with gratitude and affection! to Jane, Maria, and Harriet, and to poor George, if he be still living. Remember me to Mr. Lane, affectionately, and to all the family.

I shall send this letter enclosed to Mr. Lane, with directions that they may read it if you should not be in Mercersburg. Remember me to Uncle John, Alexander and his lady, Mr. Reynolds and his lady, and to Mrs. Martin and Molly Talbot, and believe me to be ever

Dear Madam:—

I received your kind and agreeable letter of the 20th August last on the 8th instant. I scarcely know anything the perusal of which could have afforded me more pleasure. I left no friend in my native land for whose interest and welfare I have a greater solicitude than for your own. How could it be otherwise? Your conduct since the lamented death of your husband, whose memory I shall ever cherish, has been a model of propriety. The severest critic could not find fault with any part of it, unless it be that you have too much secluded yourself from society, of which you are so well calculated to be an agreeable and instructive member. I have never heretofore expressed these sentiments to you because you might have considered them the language of flattery. As they now proceed from “a stranger in a strange land,” I cannot believe you will doubt their sincerity.

I fear I cannot with truth defend the chastity of the Empress Catharine. She was a disciple of the school of the French philosophers, and was therefore wholly destitute of religion—the surest safeguard of female virtue. Her 155natural disposition was, however, good, and where her ambition and her pleasures were not concerned she was an amiable and kind-hearted woman. The Princess Dalgorouski, one of my most intimate friends in this city (if I ought to use the term upon so short an acquaintance), is the granddaughter of the youngest brother of the Orloffs. She has several times amused me with anecdotes which she had heard from her grandfather, all tending to prove the goodness of Catharine’s heart. Among other things, it was not at all uncommon for her to rise in the morning and light her own fire, rather than disturb the slumbers of any of her attendants. She took great delight not only in educating her own grandchildren, but others of the same age about the court. Her son Paul, however, was always her aversion. When he succeeded to the throne he acted like a madman, and I have often had to laugh at the pranks of his tyranny. For example, he issued an edict commanding all persons, whether male or female, either in the summer or the winter, upon his approach to alight from their carriages and stand in the street uncovered before him as he passed. Of course the latter part of the rule applied to foot passengers. An English merchant, still living in this city, attempted upon one occasion to make his escape as the Emperor approached, but he was observed by the keen eye of Paul, and was immediately sent for to the palace. His defence was that he was near-sighted; and the Emperor immediately presented him with a pair of spectacles, and commanded him never to be seen in public without having them upon his nose. The command was literally obeyed, and the merchant has ever since worn the spectacles. The anecdote is literally true.

The Emperor Alexander was a mild and amiable man; but his example, until near the close of his life, was not calculated to restrain the dissoluteness of manners which prevailed in the days of Catharine. Circumstances, too tedious to mention in the limits of a hasty letter, made him at last esteem his wife, the Empress Elizabeth, as she deserved. In the commencement of his reign, he was a libertine, but he died a fanatic. It is delightful to hear of the familiar intercourse which he held with his subjects. He visited many families in this city as a private gentleman whom etiquette prevented from appearing at court; and upon such occasions he was as free and familiar, even with the children, as though he had been of an equal rank. He died disgusted with his high station, and exclaimed to Doctor Wyley, his physician, who was remonstrating with him for not using his prescriptions, “I am sick of this world, why should I desire to live?” Such is the end of human greatness.

The present emperor is, I think, the finest looking man, take him altogether, I have ever beheld; besides he is a prince of great energy and ability. However we may detest his conduct towards the Poles, which has no doubt been exaggerated in the English and French papers, his moral conduct, as well as that of the empress, in all their domestic relations is without a blemish. Their example in this respect has already had a happy influence on the nobility of this country. On Saturday last I attended a Te Deum at 156court, celebrated on the occasion of the birth of a young grand duke; and the gaieties of the season are expected to commence as soon as the empress shall recover from her accouchement. She is remarkably fond of dancing, in which she excels.

My time begins to pass much more pleasantly, or to speak with greater accuracy, less unpleasantly than it did at first. To be an American minister is but a slender passport to the kind attentions of the Russian nobility. They know but little of our country, and probably desire to know still less, as they are afraid of the contamination of liberty. I have, therefore, had to make my own way in their society with but little adventitious aid, and I confess I am sometimes astonished at my own success. Among the ladies, who, in every portion of the world, are the best part of society, I have many agreeable acquaintances. A greater number of them speak the English language than of the gentlemen. Besides, since my arrival here, I have learned to read and write the French, and now begin to speak it in cases of necessity.

Besides the nobility there is an agreeable and respectable society here of wealthy English and German merchants, among whom I have spent many pleasant hours. Although they are not received at court, many members of the Diplomatic Corps eat their good dinners, and treat them as they ought to be treated, with kindness and civility. I hope to visit Moscow before my return to the United States, and that, too, under favorable circumstances.

I sincerely rejoiced to hear of the good fortune of our friends of the Wheatlands. Lydia is a good little girl and deserves to be happy. I was pleased with the anecdotes you gave me in relation to the match, and the joy which my good friend Grace displayed upon the occasion. My worst wish towards them is that they may derive all the happiness from it which they anticipate. They are an excellent family, with whom I could wish you to be more intimate. I would be better pleased with them, for their own sakes, if they were less extravagant; “but take them for all and all,” I feel the warmest interest in their welfare. I regret to learn that Aunt Anne, in a state of depressed health and spirits, has felt herself under the necessity of leaving her comfortable home in Lancaster, to take charge of her son Henry’s family at the iron works. It is just such conduct, however, as I should have expected from that excellent and exemplary woman; she will always sacrifice her own comfort to a sense of duty, or to the call of humanity. I shall never forget her kindness towards myself. I beg of you to present her my best love (I think I may venture to use the expression). Remember me kindly also to Anny, and to Henry, Stephen and Samuel.

I have always appreciated the friendship of your mother as it deserved, and have felt proud of her confidence. I trust that your hopes may be realized, and that it may please Providence yet to permit me to enjoy many happy hours in her society. She possesses an admirable faculty of saying much in few words, and there is a point in her character which gives a 157peculiar force to her expressions. I know her to be an excellent mother and an excellent friend, and I warmly reciprocate her kind feelings. Say to her that I ardently wish her many pleasant days, and that the circumstances which have heretofore occurred to vex her peace may not prevent her from enjoying an old age of comfort and happiness. Remember me also in kindness to all your sisters.

But in what terms shall I speak of Mrs. H.? None of my friends, except yourself, have mentioned her name in their letters, and I need scarcely add that I did not even indulge the hope of receiving one from herself. This I can say of her, and I now speak from actual knowledge, that her manners and her talents would grace the most powerful and splendid court in Europe. I fear, however, that such a treasure is not destined to bless my pilgrimage.

I altogether approve your conduct in taking the Judge’s daughter into your family. He is a most excellent man, and will know how to appreciate your kindness. I regret to say I have received no letter from him since I left the United States. When you see him, please to present him my kindest remembrance. I heartily rejoice that you did not remove to Columbia or Marietta.

From my last information from the United States I have reason to hope that the good city of Lancaster has escaped the cholera. We have had some of it here during the summer, but not so much as to produce any serious alarm. I believe it has almost, if not altogether, disappeared. Mr. Clay, my Secretary of Legation, has been very anxious to visit home during the approaching winter, and I have given him leave to go by the last steamboat for the season, which will leave this to-morrow, Mr. Barry having agreed to officiate in his stead during his absence. He will be the bearer of despatches, and intends to visit Lancaster. I hope you will favor me with a long letter by him, and give me all the little news of the town; for you have often said I was a great gossip. I shall keep this letter open until I can ascertain whether I shall have time to write to Mr. Reynolds, so that if not I may add a postscript intended for him. The truth is that at present I am very much occupied. A tyro in diplomacy, I am compelled to encounter the most adroit and skilful politicians in the world, with no other weapons except a little practical common sense, knowledge and downright honesty. Should I fail, and I by no means despair of success, I wish to convince my government that I have done my duty. It is probable that Mr. Clay will take no private letters from me to the United States, except for my mother and yourself. I need scarcely add that I have not time to write this over, and give it such a polish as an answer to your letter deserves. When you write, which I hope will be often, please to say nothing of Russia in your letters but what may be favorable, as the post office here is not too secure. This caution, however, does not apply to that one with which I hope you will gratify me by Mr. Clay. Please to remember me kindly to the whole family at the Wheatlands, to Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds and Miss Lydia and Dr. Semple—to my old friend 158Miss Mary Carpenter, and to all others bearing that character whom you may meet.

Wishing you Heaven’s best blessing, I remain,

P. S. Please to remember me to Mr. Amos Slaymaker and Henry and his wife. I hope Mr. Dickenson may, ere this reaches you, be restored to his flock, and have a son and heir to bless his marriage bed.

I shall not have time to write to Mr. Reynolds. Please to deliver him the enclosed, and tell him that I have no journal later than the 10th August, although my other papers have arrived up till the middle of September. You may also say to him, but to him alone and caution him not to repeat it, that the prospects of success in my mission, after many difficulties, now begin to appear bright. I have received no letter from him lately. Mr. Clay will not leave this for a fortnight yet, and I shall send this letter by another opportunity to London.

As the reader has already learned, Mr. Buchanan had two very promising younger brothers, one of whom died five years before he went abroad, and the other was living and in apparently good health when he left the country. The elder of these two, William Speer Buchanan, died at Chambersburg in his 22d year, on the nineteenth of December, 1827, a few months after his admission to the bar. He had graduated at Princeton in 1822, and studied his profession at Chambersburg and at the law school in Litchfield, Connecticut. His father died while he was still at Princeton: and a letter from his mother to his brother James, written in 1821, which lies before me, gives indications of his early character.^[31]

William Buchanan did not, like his next youngest brother, live to show what he might have become. This other, and perhaps 159more brilliant member of the family, George W. Buchanan, graduated at Dickinson college in Carlisle, in 1826, at the age of eighteen, with the highest honors of his class. Being nearly twenty years younger than James, the latter, after the death of their father, took a parental interest in promoting his prospects, and guiding his professional education, he studied law in Chambersburg and Pittsburgh, and being admitted to the bar in Pittsburgh in 1828, he began to practise there. In the autumn of 1830, as the reader has seen, he was, doubtless on his brother’s request, appointed by President Jackson United States District Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Probably no man ever received a similar appointment at so early an age; he was only two and twenty; but his letters, some of which have been quoted, show great maturity of character; and as his application for the appointment must have been supported by the influence of other persons as well as by that of his brother, it is safe to assume that the office was intrusted to fit hands. He was already acquiring a lucrative private practice, when, in the summer of 1832, his health began to fail. He died in November of that year, and the following letter of Mr. Buchanan to his brother Edward relates to the sad termination of his illness:

My Dear Brother:—

I have received your three letters of the 10th and 26th September and of the 12th November: the first on the 21st October, the second not till the 2d instant, and the last on the 28th December. You will thus perceive that the one announcing the death of poor George had a very long passage, having got out of the usual line and lain at Paris a considerable time. I had heard of this melancholy event long before its arrival. How consoling it is to reflect that he had made his peace with Heaven before he departed from earth. All men desire to die the death of the righteous; but a large portion of the human race are unwilling to lead their life. I can say sincerely for myself that I desire to be a Christian, and I think I could withdraw from the vanities and follies of the world without suffering many pangs. I have thought much upon the subject since my arrival in this strange land, and sometimes almost persuade myself that I am a Christian; but I am often haunted by the spirit of scepticism and doubt. My true feeling upon many occasions is: “Lord, I would believe; help Thou mine unbelief.” Yet I am far from being an unbeliever.

160Ere this reaches you, you will probably have heard of the conclusion of the commercial treaty, which was the principal object of my mission. My success under all the circumstances seems to have been almost providential. I have had many difficulties to contend with and much serious opposition to encounter; but through the blessing of Providence I have been made the instrument of accomplishing a work in which all my predecessors had failed. I trust it will receive the approbation and promote the interests of my country.

I entertain some faint hopes that I may be permitted to leave St. Petersburg by the last steamboat of the next season; though it is probable I shall be obliged to remain another winter. Nothing, however, shall detain me longer than two years from the time of my arrival, except an urgent sense of public duty or the request of General Jackson, neither of which I anticipate. My anxiety to return home is increased by the present state of health of mother and Jane. It is not in any degree occasioned by want of kindness on the part of the people here. On the contrary, I am everywhere received in the most polite and friendly manner, and have good reason to believe I am rather a favorite, even with the emperor and empress themselves.

I shall undertake to advise you strongly not to remain in Allegheny Town. A letter which I have received from Dr. Yates confirms me in this opinion. I am glad to find this seems to be your own determination. There are but two brothers of us and you ought to use every precaution to preserve your health consistent with your duty......

My health is good, thank God, and I trust it may so continue with His blessing until we shall all once more meet again. With much love to mother and the rest of the family, I remain

NEGOTIATION OF TREATIES—COUNT NESSELRODE—HIS CHARACTERISTIC MANAGEMENT OF OPPOSING COLLEAGUES—THE EMPEROR NICHOLAS—HIS SUDDEN ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS CONSENT TO A COMMERCIAL TREATY—WHY NO TREATY CONCERNING MARITIME RIGHTS WAS MADE—RUSSIAN COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE AMERICAN PRESS—BARON SACKEN’S IMPRUDENT NOTE—BUCHANAN SKILFULLY EXONERATES HIS GOVERNMENT—SENSITIVENESS OF THE EMPEROR ON THE SUBJECT OF POLAND.

The serious business of negotiation began soon after Mr. Buchanan’s arrival in St. Petersburg. He was charged with the duty of proposing a commercial treaty with Russia, and also a treaty respecting maritime rights. It would be impossible to attempt to carry my readers through the maze of notes, protocols, and despatches which resulted in the successful accomplishment of the main object of this mission. A brief account of the principal persons concerned in the negotiation, and a narrative of its general course, together with a few of its most striking incidents, will perhaps be interesting.

At the head of the Russian chancery at this time was Count Nesselrode, the great minister, who, in 1814, as the plenipotentiary of the Emperor Alexander, signed the treaty between the Allied Powers and Napoleon, which wrested from the latter the empire of France and the kingdom of Italy, and confined his dominion to the island of Elba. Nesselrode, too, in the same capacity, along with Lord Castelreagh and Prince Talleyrand, concluded the second treaty of Paris between the Allied Powers and France, after the final overthrow of Napoleon at Waterloo, the treaty which restored the Bourbons to their throne. This distinguished person was the son of a nobleman of German descent, who had been in the service of the Empress Catharine II., and therefore, as well on account of the traditions of his house, 162as of his remarkable abilities and erudition, he must have been an interesting person to meet. He was, with all his practical astuteness, a man of moderate and rational views. He appears to have taken kindly to Mr. Buchanan from the first; but he was not predisposed to a commercial treaty with the United States, and, indeed, he had not bestowed much attention upon the subject. It had not been his habit, or the habit of any of the Russian statesmen, during the long wars in which Russia had been engaged prior to the year 1815, to look much beyond the confines of Europe and those portions of the East which were involved in the European system. Still, however, Count Nesselrode was open to conviction upon the importance of a commercial treaty with the United States; and it will appear in the sequel that the treaty was at length carried in the cabinet, against strenuous opposition, by his very dexterous management, seconded by Mr. Buchanan’s skilful course and ample knowledge of the subject.

Baron Krudener, who was at this time the Russian Minister at Washington, but who was at home on leave of absence when Mr. Buchanan came to St. Petersburg, was opposed to all commercial treaties. So was Count Cancrene, the minister of finance. He was an embodiment of the old traditionary policy of Russia, which did not favor close or special commercial alliances. From the time of the Empress Catharine, the relations between Russia and this country had always been friendly; but there had been no treaties concluded between the two countries, since the Government of this Union had taken its present form, down to the year 1824. The convention negotiated in that year by Mr. Middleton, and ratified in 1825, was quite inadequate to reach the various interests of trade that had since grown up, and was still less adapted to promote an increase of the commerce between Russia and the United States. To make a treaty which would answer these great purposes; establish the principle that would entitle either party to require an equal participation in the favors extended to other nations; provide for the residence and functions of consuls and vice-consuls; regulate the rates of duties to be levied oil the merchandise of each country by the other, so far as to prevent undue discrimination in favor of the products of other countries; 163and fix the succession of the personal estates of citizens or subjects of either country dying in the territories of the other; all this constituted a task to be committed on our side to able hands, considering the obstacles that had to be removed. Mr. Buchanan was at the age of thirty-eight, when he undertook this labor. Although he was without official experience in diplomacy, I think it evident that he had been a student of the diplomatic history of his own country and of public law to a considerable extent; and what he did not know of the trade between Russia and the United States before he left home, he made himself master of soon after he arrived at St. Petersburg. He spoke of himself in a letter quoted in the last chapter, as a tyro in diplomacy, with no weapons but a little practical common sense, knowledge, and downright honesty, with which to encounter the most adroit and skilful politicians in the world. It will be seen that he found the encounter a hard one. But his manners were conciliatory; his tact was never at fault, so far as I can discover; and it is evident that he was a favorite in all the circles of Russian society into which he entered. He found that his weapons, good sense, knowledge of his subject, and a certain honest tenacity of purpose, were sufficient for all the demands of his position. When he first reached St. Petersburg, his knowledge of the French language was quite imperfect, but he soon acquired sufficient facility in speaking it for the ordinary purposes of conversation. Count Nesselrode did not speak English well, but he could converse in that language, although he did not like to trust himself to it entirely. Mr. Buchanan’s French was perhaps rather better than the count’s English. They do not seem in their intercourse to have used an interpreter, but in one or the other language they got on together very well.

After Mr. Buchanan’s arrival and the necessary formalities had been gone through according to the rigid etiquette of the Russian court, he wrote privately to General Jackson on the 22d of June (1832) in regard to the prospects of his mission, as follows:

I am not without hope of succeeding in the negotiation, though I can say nothing upon the subject with the least degree of certainty. I entertain this hope chiefly because I am now fully convinced it is their interest to enter into a treaty of commerce with us. In a casual conversation the other day with Baron Krudener I explained my views of the great advantages Russia derived from our commerce with St. Petersburg, and how much, in my opinion, the agriculture and the general prosperity of the colonies on the Black Sea would be promoted by encouraging American navigation in that quarter. Yesterday I had another conversation with the baron from which it was evident he had been conversing with Count Nesselrode upon the subject; and the impression which I have received from him is rather favorable. Still it is of a character so vague that I place but little reliance upon it. I shall see Count Nesselrode at one o’clock to-day, and will keep this letter open until after our interview.

3.30. I have just returned from Count Nesselrode’s, and from our interview I entertain a hope, I may say a good hope, that I shall be able to conclude both treaties with this government. I am sorry I shall not have time to prepare a despatch for Mr. Livingston to be sent by Captain Ramsay. He shall hear from me, however, by the first safe opportunity.

[There is one subject to which I desire briefly to direct your attention. I should write to the department about it, but my views are not yet sufficiently distinct to place them there upon record, and besides there is not now time. In case a treaty should be made with this government on the subject of maritime rights, its provisions ought to be framed with great care, because it will probably be a model for similar treaties with other nations. In looking over the project in my possession, I find one provision which it strikes me the cabinet ought to re-examine. It is the proviso to the first article. This proviso was not introduced into our earlier treaties. It first found a place in that with Spain and has since been copied into our treaties with Colombia, Central America and Brazil.

Why should this limitation exist? I shall allude to my views by presenting a supposed case, for I have not time to do more.

Suppose Great Britain, which does not recognize the principle that “free ships make free goods,” and Russia to be engaged in war after the treaty, the United States being neutral.

1. Would it not be greatly for our interest (more particularly as from our character we shall generally be a neutral nation) if our ships could carry the goods of Englishmen to Russia and all over the world, without these goods being subjected to capture by the armed vessels of Russia?

2. Would not great embarrassments arise if Russian vessels of war, after ascertaining that a vessel belonged to a citizen of the United States, which is 165all they could do under the general principle, should then under the proviso be permitted to inquire into the ownership of the cargo, and if they suspected it belonged in whole or in part to English subjects, to seize and take it before a prize court?

3. This proviso could only have been introduced to force England into the adoption of the rule that “the flag covers the cargo;” but how can it produce that effect? It will render the property of an Englishman as insecure on board an American as a British vessel; it being equally liable to seizure in either. But let the rule be general, let our flag protect the cargo, no matter who may be the owner, and then English merchants will have the strongest inducements to employ our navigation.

4. Would not the promise make the treaty itself a felo de se, whenever Russia shall be at war with a nation which does not recognize the general rule?

5. If England should at any time be neutral and we at war, the general rule adopted between us and Russia will not prevent us from capturing our enemies’ goods on board British vessels.

6. These suggestions become of much more importance when we consider that we may have similar treaties with many nations.

These crude remarks are merely intended to direct your attention to the subject. I consider it very important and should like to hear from the department in relation to it as soon as possible. We shall first take up the treaty of commerce, I presume; indeed Count Nesselrode has asked for my views in writing on that subject.

It might be of consequence to me to have a copy of our treaty with Turkey.]

In haste, I am, with the greatest respect,

P. S. Please remember me to the members of your cabinet and also your family.

2d P. S. Captain Ramsay, for whom I had obtained a courier’s passport, will not go to-day; but I have fortunately just heard of a vessel about sailing for Boston, by which I send this.

At a little later period, Mr. Buchanan formally submitted to Count Nesselrode the propositions which he had been instructed to make as the basis of a commercial treaty, and those which related to the subject of maritime rights, or the rights of neutrals during war. Nothing definite was arrived at on either topic until the 8th-10th of October. On that day, Mr. Buchanan received a note from Count Nesselrode, requesting him to call at the Foreign Office on the succeeding Monday. What followed 166was certainly a most remarkable occurrence. The count began the conversation by asking whether the answer which he was about to make to the American propositions would be in time to reach Washington before the next meeting of Congress. Mr. Buchanan replied that it would not, but said that it might reach Washington within a fortnight after that period. The count then asked if the answer could be sent immediately. Mr. Buchanan replied that if, as he hoped, the answer should be favorable, he would take measures to send it at once. The count then stated reasons, which had led the emperor to decline the American proposition for concluding a treaty of commerce and navigation between the two countries, but made no allusion to the proposed treaty concerning maritime rights. Here there was a dilemma, for which Mr. Buchanan was not prepared by anything that had preceded; for although he was well aware of the interior opposition to a commercial treaty in the Russian cabinet, and was not very sanguine of success, he had placed his hopes on Count Nesselrode’s ability and disposition to overcome that opposition. That the emperor had come to an unfavorable decision, and that Count Nesselrode had been directed to communicate it, was rather an unexpected event. Nesselrode, however, contrived to make Mr. Buchanan understand that the emperor had yielded in this matter to the opinions of Count Cancrene, the minister of finance, and of M. de Blondorff, the minister of the interior, and that the result had not been in accordance with his, Nesselrode’s, judgment. Such an occurrence could hardly have taken place in an English cabinet, still less would it have been communicated to a foreign minister; but in Russia it was perhaps not uncommon for the prime minister to be overruled by his colleagues. But Count Nesselrode knew a way to get over all such difficulties; and he proceeded in a very characteristic manner to accomplish what he intended. He went over anew the whole ground, encouraging Mr. Buchanan to develop again the reasons which made a commercial treaty desirable for both countries and finally requested him to put them in the shape of a formal note. He then assumed a very confidential tone, which may be best described by Mr. Buchanan’s own account, given in his despatch of October 19–21, to the secretary of state.

167“Towards the conclusion of the interview he laid aside altogether, or at least appeared to do so, the wary diplomatist, and his manners became frank and candid. He made the request and repeated it, that I should submit a new proposition for the conclusion of a commercial treaty, and accompany it by an abstract of the explanations which I had just made, impressing it upon me to advert especially to the trade with the Black Sea, and the moral influence, to use his own expression, which such a treaty might have on the people of the United States. I told him I should do so with pleasure. He then requested me to send it as soon as I conveniently could and he would immediately submit it to the emperor, and give me an answer before the departure of the last steamboat, which was to leave St. Petersburg on Wednesday, the 19–21 instant. He afterwards asked me whether I intended to send the note to Washington which he had delivered to me, by the next steamboat; and from his manner it was easy to perceive that he wished I would not. I replied that I should certainly delay sending it until the last steamboat, hoping that in the meantime I might receive a better one......

Some conversation, not necessary to be repeated, was held on other subjects, and I took my leave much satisfied with the interview and arguing from it the most happy results, should Count Nesselrode possess sufficient influence to carry his own wishes into effect, against those of Count Cancrene.”

In a short time after Mr. Buchanan’s new communication had been sent to Count Nesselrode, a further step was taken in what might almost be called a diplomatic intrigue. Baron de Brunnow, a counsellor of state, and the confidential friend of Count Nesselrode, called upon Mr. Buchanan, and informing him that he came by the count’s request, said that Mr. Buchanan’s views contained in his note were perfectly satisfactory to the count, and that they were so clearly and distinctly expressed that they could not be misapprehended, and that the count would be happy to become the medium of presenting them to the emperor, and would use his influence to have them adopted. But in order that nothing might appear which would show that Count Nesselrode had requested Mr. Buchanan to submit a new proposition for a commercial treaty, the baron desired Mr. Buchanan to modify the language of his note, so that it would not appear to be written in compliance with any wish which the count had expressed. Perceiving the struggle which was about to ensue in the cabinet between Nesselrode and Cancrene, Mr. Buchanan at once agreed to change the phraseology of his note. Baron Brunnow requested that it 168might be done immediately, as it was Count Nesselrode’s intention to have the note translated into French on that day, and to go with it to the emperor on the next morning, so that an answer might, if possible, be obtained before the departure of the next steamboat. Baron Brunnow made no secret of Count Cancrene’s opposition to all commercial treaties, but said that Count Nesselrode saw no objection to such a one as Mr. Buchanan had proposed; that he had repeated Mr. Buchanan’s observation that “statesmen often found it expedient to yield even to honest prejudices for the purpose of promoting the public good,” and had said that he had no doubt such a treaty would produce a beneficial effect on the American trade with the Black Sea.

This mode of facilitating Count Nesselrode’s movements being arranged, the conversation between Mr. Buchanan and Baron Brunnow turned upon the proposed treaty concerning maritime rights, of which an account will be given hereafter. Excepting the interchange of formal notes relating to the commercial treaty, nothing further occurred until the 31st of October, when Mr. Buchanan calling at the Foreign Office by appointment, found Count Nesselrode “in fine spirits and in the most frank and candid mood.” But he said that it would be impossible to conclude the treaty before the end of a fortnight. In making the arrangements for sending to the United States the new notes which had passed, the count expressed the strongest desire that the British government should not obtain any knowledge that such a treaty was in contemplation; and for this reason he offered to send Mr. Buchanan’s despatch for Washington by a Russian courier, to be delivered to Mr. Vail, the American chargé in London. Mr. Buchanan preferred another channel of communication with Mr. Vail, and through that channel his despatch was sent off on the following day. The attitude in which it left the whole affair of the commercial treaty was thus summed up by Mr. Buchanan:

“For several weeks before the receipt of Count Nesselrode’s first note, I had but little expectation of concluding a commercial treaty. Mr. Kielchen, lately appointed consul at Boston by this government, informed me, some time ago, that Count Cancrene had resolved never to consent to the conclusion of such a treaty with any power whilst he continued in the ministry, 169and his influence with the emperor, particularly on commercial subjects, was universally admitted to be very great. He has the character of being an obstinate man; and I scarcely allowed myself to hope, either that he would change, or be defeated in his purpose. I feel the more happy, therefore, in being able to congratulate you upon our present favorable prospects.”

Nothing was heard from Count Nesselrode for nearly a month; but on the evening of November 21st Mr. Buchanan met him at a party. The count took Mr. Buchanan aside, and told him that he believed he was now ready for him, and proposed to send him a project of a treaty of commerce which should be founded on the provisions of the American treaties with Prussia, Sweden and Austria. Long interviews and oral discussions of this project then took place at the Foreign Office between Mr. Buchanan, Count Nesselrode, Baron Brunnow and Baron Sacken. In these discussions Mr. Buchanan evinced the most thorough acquaintance with the whole subject, and gave the Russian statesmen information which was new to them and greatly surprised them. At length all the details of the treaty were settled, and by the 17th of December it was prepared for signature in duplicate, in the French and English languages. Still the treaty was not yet signed. For the purpose of expediting the matter, Mr. Buchanan made a suggestion that as the emperor’s fête day, or his saint’s day, was to be celebrated on the 18th December, N. S., that it should be signed on that day. Count Nesselrode was pleased with the suggestion, and said that Mr. Buchanan’s wish should be gratified, if possible. Baron Sacken doubted if it would be practicable, but the count said it must be done, and that Mr. Clay, the American Secretary of Legation, could assist them in making the copies. This occurred on the 13th of December, N. S. It was not, however, until Mr. Buchanan was in the presence of the emperor, at his levée on the morning of the 18th, that he felt finally assured that the treaty would be signed, although Count Nesselrode had informed him on the 15th that he was authorized to sign it. What occurred at the emperor’s levée will be best told by Mr. Buchanan himself:

On Tuesday morning, the 18th, we went to the emperor’s levée; and on this occasion a singular occurrence took place in relation to the treaty.

170The strictest secrecy had been preserved throughout the negotiation. Indeed I do not believe an individual, except those immediately concerned, had the least idea that negotiations were even pending. A rumor of the refusal of this government to make the treaty had circulated two months ago, and I was then repeatedly informed in conversation, that it was in vain for any nation to attempt to conclude a treaty of commerce with the Russian government, whilst Count Cancrene continued to be minister of finance. Count Nesselrode had on one occasion intimated a desire that the British government should not obtain a knowledge that negotiations were proceeding, and this was an additional reason on our part for observing the greatest caution.

It ought to be remembered, however, that this intimation was given before information had reached St. Petersburg of the conclusion of the late treaty between France and England in relation to the Belgian question. The diplomatic corps, according to the etiquette, were arranged in a line to receive the emperor and empress; and Mr. Bligh, the English minister, occupied the station immediately below myself. You may judge of my astonishment when the emperor, accosting me in French, in a tone of voice which could be heard by all around, said, “I signed the order yesterday that the treaty should be executed according to your wishes;” and then immediately turning to Mr. Bligh asked him to become the interpreter of this information. He (Mr. Bligh) is a most amiable man, and his astonishment and embarrassment were so striking that I felt for him most sincerely. This incident has already given rise to considerable speculation among the knowing ones of St. Petersburg; probably much more than it deserves.

I ought to remark that when I was presented to the emperor, I understood but little, I might almost say no, French; and there was then an interpreter present. Supposing this still to be the case, the emperor must have thought that an interpreter was necessary, and he was correct to a certain extent, for I have not yet had sufficient practice to attempt to speak French in the presence of the whole court. I trust this may not long be the case; but I still more ardently hope I may not very long continue in a situation where it will be necessary to speak that language.

There can be no doubt but that all which occurred was designed on the part of the emperor; and what must have rendered it still more embarrassing to Mr. Bligh was, that one object of Lord Durham’s mission is said to have been the conclusion of a commercial treaty with Russia.

After the emperor had retired, Mr. Bligh, in manifest confusion, told me he feared he had been a very bad interpreter, and asked me what kind of a treaty we had been concluding with Russia, to which I replied it was a treaty of commerce.

Count Nesselrode was not present at the moment, and from his manner when I informed him of the incident, I believe he had not previously received any intimation of the emperor’s intention to make such a disclosure.

The count and myself afterwards proceeded from the palace to the 171Foreign Office and there signed the treaty. The only persons present were Baron Brunnow and Baron Sacken. On this occasion but little worthy of repetition occurred. They all exhibited the greatest cordiality and good will, and the count emphatically declared that he believed we had that day completed a work which would result in benefits to both nations.

On taking my leave, I expressed no more than I felt, in thanking him for his kind and candid conduct throughout the whole negotiation, and he paid me some compliments in return......

Thus, sir, you have in my different despatches a faithful history of the whole progress of the negotiation up to its termination. Independently of the positive advantages secured to our commerce by the treaty, and of the stipulation prohibiting Russia from granting favors to any other nation at our expense, there is another consideration which deserves attention. I think I cannot be mistaken in asserting that if the feelings of the Russians towards our country in the days of the Emperor Alexander were of a kindly character, which I have no reason to doubt, they have undergone some change since the accession of his present majesty. In a future despatch I may probably state my reasons for this impression. The very fact, however, of concluding the present treaty and thus distinguishing us from other commercial nations, connected with the time and manner in which his majesty thought proper to announce it, will have a powerful influence favorable to our country among the members of a court where every look and every word of the emperor is noted and observed almost as if he were a Divinity. I may say that I have already experienced a change: even Count Cancrene, in a conversation with Baron Steiglitz of this city, has expressed his assent to the treaty, observing at the same time that the United States formed an exception to his general principles on this subject. He added a compliment to myself of such a character as I know I do not deserve, and therefore I shall not repeat.^[32]

In announcing to the Secretary of State (on the 20th of December, 1832, N. S.) the conclusion of the commercial treaty, Mr. Buchanan said:

“I have now the pleasure of transmitting to you a treaty of commerce and navigation, which was signed on Tuesday last, the 18th instant, between the United States and Russia, by Count Nesselrode and myself. I congratulate the President, that after many fruitless attempts have been made by our Government to conclude such a treaty, it has at last been accomplished.

172“Like yourself, I confess, I did not entertain sanguine hopes of success when I left Washington. The despatch of Mr. Randolph upon this subject was indeed very discouraging. The difficulties in prospect, however, served only to inspire me with a stronger resolution to accomplish, if practicable, the wishes of the President. This I trust has been done without the slightest sacrifice, in my person, of either the dignity or the honor of the country. Should my conduct throughout this difficult, and in some respects extraordinary negotiation, receive his approbation and that of the Senate, I shall be amply compensated for my labors.”

That Mr. Buchanan was not equally successful in concluding a treaty concerning maritime rights is a matter that admits of easy explanation. In the communication which was made to him by Count Nesselrode in October (1832), there was conveyed a respectful refusal to make the commercial treaty. At the interview which took place afterward between Baron Brunnow and Mr. Buchanan, at the house of the latter, after they had arranged for re-opening the negotiation concerning a commercial treaty, there was a conversation on the other subject, which was thus reported by Mr. Buchanan to the Secretary of State:

After our conversation ended on this subject,—I referred to that portion of the note of Count Nesselrode which declined our offer to conclude a treaty on maritime rights, and said that the President would probably not be prepared for this refusal. I told him that on the 28th August, 1828, N. S., a few months before the election of General Jackson, Baron Krudener had addressed a communication to the Department of State which gave a strong assurance that the emperor was willing to conclude such a treaty. That when General Jackson assumed the reins of Government in the month of March following, he had found this communication on file, and that was the principal reason why he had given Mr. Randolph instructions to conclude a treaty concerning neutral rights. I was therefore surprised no allusion whatever had been made to this important letter in the note of Count Nesselrode, and that he had passed it over as though it had never existed, whilst he referred to the note he had addressed to Mr. Middleton so long ago as the 1st of February, 1824, for the purpose of explaining the views of the imperial government at the present moment.

I then produced the communication of Baron Krudener to Mr. Brent of the 16–28th of August, 1828, and read it to Baron Brunnow. After he had perused it himself, he expressed his surprise at its contents, and said he did not believe a copy of it had been transmitted to the Foreign Office; that he could say for himself he had never seen it before. He thought the baron must have gone further than his instructions had warranted; and that instead 173of expressing the willingness of the emperor to adopt by mutual agreement, the principles concerning neutral rights proposed by the United States, he ought merely to have expressed the concurrence of the emperor in those principles and his desire to preserve and protect them. He added that these rights were best maintained by the power of nations, and we had nobly defended them during our late war with England. I replied, that was very true, and the United States were becoming more and more powerful every year, and had less and less occasion to rely upon treaties for the maintenance of their neutral rights.

I afterwards remarked that I thought the count, from the tenor of his note, had probably overlooked one circumstance of importance in considering this subject, as he had placed the refusal chiefly on the ground that it would be useless for only two powers to conclude such a treaty between themselves. That the fact was, the United States already had treaties of a similar character with several nations, which I enumerated, and that if Russia had concluded this treaty, in case she should hereafter unfortunately be engaged in war with any of these powers, the property of her subjects would be secure from capture by their ships of war, on board of American vessels. He replied that as to Prussia, Sweden, and Holland there was little danger of any war between them and Russia; and that we had no such treaties with the maritime powers with whom Russia was likely to be engaged in hostilities.

(Evidently, as I supposed, alluding to England and France.)

In the course of the conversation, I regretted that I had never seen the note addressed by Count Nesselrode to Mr. Middleton in February, 1824, and that there was no copy of it in the archives of the legation here. He then said he would take pleasure in sending me a copy, and thought he might assure me with perfect confidence, from the feelings of Count Nesselrode towards myself, that he would be happy to send me at all times copies of any other papers I might desire from the Foreign Office.

He at first proposed to repeat this conversation to Count Nesselrode. I replied I had no objection. It was not intended by me as an attempt to renew the negotiation at the present time; but merely to make some suggestions to him in free conversation. Before he took leave, however, he said he believed that as his mission to me had been of a special character, he would report nothing to the count but what had a relation to the commercial treaty—except that I desired to have a copy of his note to Mr. Middleton; but that after the other subject was finally disposed of, he thought I ought to mention these things to Count Nesselrode myself. I told him I probably might, that what I had said to him on this subject, had been communicated in a frank and friendly spirit, and I considered it altogether unofficial. No doubt he repeated every word.

What is here related occurred in the autumn of 1832, and the subject of maritime rights was not again alluded to until 174the following spring. Writing to General Jackson a private letter on the 29th of May, 1833, Mr. Buchanan said:

I fear I shall not be able to conclude the treaty concerning maritime rights, though I shall use my best exertions. My late attempt to introduce the subject was not very successful, as you will have seen from my last despatch.

I have now, after much reflection, determined on my plan of operations. It would not be consistent with the high character of our Government, or with what I am confident would be your wishes, that I should make another direct official proposition, without a previous intimation that it would be well received; and we might thus be subjected to another direct refusal so soon after the last. It is therefore my intention to present my views of the subject in the form of an unofficial note, and to express them with as much clearness and force as I am capable [of]. I shall not in this note seek a renewal of the negotiation; though I shall leave it clearly to be inferred that such is my desire. If they should not move in the business afterwards, it would neither be proper nor dignified to press them further.

I am convinced they are endeavoring to manage England at present, and that this is an unpropitious moment to urge them to adopt principles of public law which would give offence to that nation. Besides, Russia has now a large navy, and but a small commercial marine; and it is not for such a power as she now believes herself to be, to desire to change the law of nations in such a manner as to abridge her belligerent rights. The principle “that free ships shall make free goods,” will always be most popular with nations who possess a large commercial marine and a small navy, and whose policy is peaceful. But I shall do my best. I hope this question may be determined by the beginning of August, as I should then have the opportunity of seeing something more of Europe, and yet reach the United States about the end of November. By the last accounts, my mother’s health was decidedly better, so that on that ground I need not so much hasten my return.

I have received many letters which give me strong assurances that I shall be elected to the Senate. I confess, however, that I feel very doubtful of success. The men in Pennsylvania, who have risen to power by the popularity of your name, while in heart they are opposed to you, will do every thing they can to prevent my election. The present governor is greatly influenced by their counsels, and his patronage is very great and very powerful. Besides, the Nullifiers and their organ, the Telegraph, will show me no quarter. Thank God! I know how to be content with a private station, and I shall leave the Legislature to do just as they please......

Our excellent consul here is in very bad health from the severity of the climate. His physician says that he must travel, and that immediately: but I entertain some doubts whether he has sufficient strength left for the purpose. It is said, however, that he was restored once before by a change of climate, when in an equally weak condition. He purposes to set off in a few weeks, 175and Mr. Clay, who will have little else to attend to, will do his business cheerfully during his absence. I sincerely wish he could obtain a situation in a milder climate. It would be a most happy circumstance for the commerce of the United States if all our consuls were like Mr. G. After sending my note to Count Nesselrode, I intend to visit Moscow for a few days, as he is to be absent himself. I beg to present my respects to your family, and to Messrs. Barry, Taney, McLane and Woodbury.

The simple truth is, that the Russian government, since the intimation made by Baron Krudener just before General Jackson became President, had changed its mind in regard to the subject of maritime rights. The reason for declining to make the treaty in 1832–33, as explained by Count Pozzo di Borgo to Mr. Buchanan, in Paris, accords entirely with what Mr. Buchanan had learned at St. Petersburg.^[33] The attitude of the Belgian question, and the relations of Russia towards England, precluded the acceptance of the American proposal to establish by treaty between Russia and the United States the principle that “free ships make free goods.”

All of Mr. Buchanan’s official duties at St. Petersburg were not, however, so entirely pleasant as the negotiation of the commercial treaty. While this negotiation was in its early stage, Baron Sacken, who had been left by Baron Krudener as Russian chargé d’affaires at Washington, made to the Secretary of State a somewhat offensive communication, complaining of certain articles in The Globe, the official paper of the American Government, concerning the conduct of Russia towards Poland. The complaint was doubtless made in ignorance of the fact that although the Globe was the official gazette of our Government, the President had no control over or responsibility for its editorial articles, or the articles which it copied from English or French journals. The freedom of the press in this country was not understood by Russian officials; and although it does not appear that Baron Sacken’s act was directed from St. Petersburg, there can be no doubt that in making the complaint he did what he believed would be acceptable to his superiors at home. He, however, considerably overshot the mark, in the tone and manner of his communication to the Department of 176State, and it became necessary for the President to direct Mr. Buchanan to lay the matter before the Russian government. This was done by a despatch from Mr. Livingston, courteous but firm, pointing out the impossibility of exercising in this country any governmental constraint over the press, and making very clear the offensive imputation of insincerity on the part of the President contained in Baron Sacken’s note. This occurrence was not known at St. Petersburg, at least it was not known to Mr. Buchanan, while the negotiation of the commercial treaty was pending. On the receipt of Mr. Livingston’s despatch, which was written early in January, 1833, Mr. Buchanan had an interview with Count Nesselrode on the subject, of which he gave the following account to the Secretary of State:

On yesterday at 2 o’clock, P. M., I had a conference with the count. I inquired if he had yet received from Washington the answer of Mr. Livingston to Baron Sacken’s note of the 14th of October last; to which he replied in the affirmative. After expressing my regret that anything unpleasant should have occurred at Washington in the intercourse between the two governments, whilst everything here had been proceeding so harmoniously, I observed:

That Baron Sacken himself, in his note to Mr. Brent, had admitted that the President, throughout the whole course of his administration, had constantly expressed a desire to be on friendly terms with Russia. But the President’s feelings had not been confined to mere official declarations to the Russian government; they had been expressed, in strong terms, before the world in each of his annual messages to Congress, previous to the date of Baron Sacken’s note. Besides they had been always manifested by his conduct.

The baron [I said], with a full knowledge of these facts, had addressed this note to Mr. Brent, which was not only offensive in its general tone, but more especially so in imputing a want of sincerity to the President, and in effect charging him with tacitly encouraging the abuse of the emperor by the American newspapers, whilst he was professing friendship towards the Russian government. Such a charge was well calculated to make a strong impression upon General Jackson, a man who, during his whole life, had been distinguished for sincerity and frankness. When, after Mr. Clay’s departure, I had perused this note, with which his excellency had been good enough to furnish me, I was convinced the President could not pass it over in silence; and I had since been astonished not to have received, until very recently, any communication on the subject.

177I had now discovered that the reason of this delay was an anxious desire on the part of the President to avoid everything unpleasant in the intercourse between the two countries; and had formed an expectation that Baron Sacken himself, after reflection, would have rendered it unnecessary to bring the subject before the imperial government. In this hope the President had been disappointed. Nearly two months had transpired before Mr. Livingston answered his note. In the meantime, a fair opportunity was afforded him to withdraw it, and a verbal intimation given that this would be more agreeable to the President than to take the only notice of it which he could take with propriety. Mr. Livingston had supposed that, under the circumstances, the baron would have felt it to be his duty to visit Washington, where, at a verbal conference, the affair might have been satisfactorily adjusted. In this opinion he found he was mistaken. At length, on the 4th December, he addressed the baron this answer, which places in a striking light the most offensive part of his note, the charge of insincerity. Even in it, however, the President’s feelings of amity for Russia and respect for the emperor are reiterated.

After this answer, Mr. Livingston waited nearly another month, confident that a disavowal of any offensive intention would, at least, have been made. This not having been done, he has sent me instructions, under date of the 3d January last, to bring the subject under the notice of the imperial government; and it is for that purpose I have solicited the present interview.

The count expressed his regret that any misunderstanding should have occurred between Baron Sacken and Mr. Livingston; it was evident the former never could have intended anything offensive to the President, as he had taken the precaution of submitting his note of the 14th of October to Mr. Livingston in New York before it was transmitted to the Department, who not only made no objection to it at the time, but informed him it should be answered in a few days. The count then asked if Mr. Livingston had not communicated this circumstance to me in his despatches. I replied in the negative, and from my manner intimated some doubt as to its existence; when he took up the despatch of Baron Sacken and read to me, in French, a statement of this fact. He said, if Mr. Livingston had at that time objected to any part of the note, the baron would have immediately changed its phraseology. I replied that the President at least had certainly never seen the note previous to its receipt at the Department; and it appeared to me manifestly to contain an imputation on his sincerity, and was besides offensive in its general character. He did not attempt to justify its language, but repeated that he thought Baron Sacken never could have intended to write anything offensive to the President. If he had, it would have been done in violation of his instructions. That the feelings of the emperor as well as his own were of the most friendly nature towards the Government of the United States, and that, in particular, both the emperor and himself entertained the highest respect and esteem for the character of the President. That neither of them would ever think of sanctioning the imputation of insincerity or 178anything that was dishonorable to General Jackson, and he was very sorry Baron Sacken had written a note the effect of which was to wound his feelings.

As the count did not still seem to be altogether satisfied that the note attributed insincerity to the professions of the President, I then took it up and pointed out in as clear and striking a manner as I could, the most offensive passages which it contained. After I had done, he repeated in substance what he had said before, but without any qualification whatever, expressing both his own sorrow and that of the emperor, that Baron Sacken should have written a note calculated to wound the feelings of General Jackson, or to give him any cause of offence. He added, that the baron either already had left, or would soon leave the United States; and he had no doubt, that soon after the arrival of the treaty and of Baron Krudener at Washington, all matters would be explained to the satisfaction of the President; by whom, he trusted, this unpleasant occurrence would be entirely forgotten.

With this explanation, I expressed myself perfectly satisfied, and assured him I should have great pleasure in communicating it to the President.

He then observed that, judging from the despatch of Baron Sacken, this unfortunate business seemed to have been a succession of mistakes. That Mr. Livingston, through Mr. Kremer, had pointed out to the baron the exceptional parts of his note; but whilst he was engaged in correcting them, and before sufficient time for this purpose had been afforded, he had received Mr. Livingston’s note of the 4th of December.

In the course of the interview, the count read me several detached paragraphs from Baron Sacken’s despatch, and from their character I received the impression that he had become alarmed at the consequences of his own conduct, and was endeavoring to justify it in the best manner he could.

We afterwards had some conversation respecting the publications in our newspapers, in which allusion was made to the explanations I had given him on this subject in December. He stated distinctly that they were now fully aware of the difficulties which would attend any attempt to interfere with the press under our form of Government.

In obedience to your instructions, I now read to him the greater part of Despatch No. 5, and explained the nature of the only connection which our Government has with the official paper. After having done so, I asked him to consider the consequences of an unsuccessful attempt on the part of the administration at Washington to control the Globe; and told him that in that event, the editor, by publishing it to the world, would make both the emperor and the President subjects of abuse throughout the Union. The press was essentially free in our country. Even the Congress of the United States had no power to pass any law for the punishment of a libel on the President. This subject was exclusively under the jurisdiction of the several States.

That, it was true, editors were often influenced by the counsel of those whom they respected, therefore I had communicated his request to General Jackson, that he would advise the editor of the Globe to desist hereafter from offensive 179publications against Russia, but even this would be a delicate matter to proceed from a person holding the office of President of the United States. I then informed him that I had been much pleased, some weeks since, to observe in the St. Petersburg Journal an official contradiction of some of the acts attributed to the Russian government of Poland; that I had sent the paper which contained it to the Department of State, and had no doubt it would be extensively published in the United States. He expressed great satisfaction that I had taken the trouble, and said it would be very agreeable to them to have this contradiction circulated throughout our country.

It is scarcely worth repeating that he objected, in a good-natured manner, to the designation of Baron Sacken’s note in the despatch as “a formal note,” observing that a formal note always commenced with “the undersigned,” and not the first person. This was intended to be an informal note, and that was the reason it had been submitted to Mr. Livingston before it was transmitted to the Department of State.

I congratulate you that this unpleasant affair has had such an auspicious termination. We shall, I think, hear no more complaints from this quarter, on the subject of publications in the American newspapers, especially if the editor of the Globe should be a little more circumspect in his course hereafter.

In regard to the subject of Polish affairs, the treatment of which by the Globe was the occasion of Baron Sacken’s imprudent note, it will be seen hereafter that the emperor was peculiarly sensitive to the comments of the foreign press. Mr. Buchanan, who had the best opportunity for observation while he was in St. Petersburg, formed the opinion that the personal attacks upon the emperor, on account of the conduct of his government towards the Poles, with which the English, French, and American journals abounded, were to a certain extent unjust; that the inveterate national hatreds with which the Russian and Polish races regarded each other, were at the bottom of most of the difficulties with which the emperor had to contend; and that the fact that Russian officers were intrusted with power in Poland over a race whom they hated and by whom they were hated in turn, inevitably led to many of the cruelties and oppressions with which the world outside of Russia resounded, and which were charged upon the emperor personally, as if he had designed them. Buchanan did not palliate or excuse the conduct of the Russian government towards the Poles; nor does he seem on any occasion, when it was proper for him to refer to it, to have allowed any one to suppose that he defended it. But in writing to his own Government or to his friends at home, he 180did not hesitate to say that he thought many of the causes which produced the oppression that so roused the indignation of the world, lay deep in the national hatred between the two races, and were not to be imputed to an arbitrary and cruel temper in the emperor.

He looked upon the despotism which he saw with the calm eye of an observer who could comprehend its character and trace its operations, without doing injustice to the reigning monarch. He saw a vast nation entirely incapable of any thing like constitutional liberty, and governed by the absolute will of one man, to obey whom was at once a point of religion, loyalty and patriotism. Between the nobility and the throne, there was no middle class, capable of thinking or acting upon any political subject; and the nobility, as a rule, were capable and desirous of no other political training, ideas or aspirations than such as would fit them for the part of useful servants of an emperor whom they adored, and of a system which constituted their country the most peculiar and the least free of any in Europe. The statesmen who were formed under such a system were, as might naturally be expected, accomplished in many ways, subtle and often powerful reasoners; and they were not seldom among the ablest men of the age. When they were made to understand how completely, as Mr. Buchanan said, they and we were “political antipodes,” they found no difficulty in yielding to the necessity of respecting a state of things in America which was so unlike any thing that they knew at home. At first, Count Nesselrode could not understand how a government could have an official organ, and yet disclaim responsibility to a foreign power for what that organ said in its editorial columns. But when it was explained to him that the American Government did disclaim that responsibility, and was obliged to do so by the nature of its political institutions, he did not make it his business to argue the point, but gracefully accepted the explanation and put an end to the whole of the misunderstanding.

It must be confessed, however, that while Mr. Buchanan fully and firmly carried out his instructions and procured all the admission that his own Government desired, in regard to Baron Sacken’s note, it was a pretty fine distinction that his Government 181had to draw. It was perfectly true that the Globe was the official gazette of the American Government, and yet that its editorial columns could not be legally controlled by the President. Still it might be a question whether an American administration should have had an official organ, with which it was connected on such terms that the editor or conductor was just as independent of its influence or its power, as if he published a newspaper that was not connected in any way with the Government. Both at home and abroad, the editorial columns of the Globe were liable to be regarded as speaking the sentiments of the administration; and when it became necessary to disclaim that they did so, the explanation, although made upon undeniable facts, was an awkward one to make. Mr. Buchanan certainly felt it to be so, for in writing to the Secretary of State, after he had obtained from Count Nesselrode all the disavowal that was desired, he said:

I have time but for few remarks upon this strange interview.

It serves to show how indispensable it is that our minister to this country should be kept advised of every proceeding in the United States which may affect the relations between the two nations. He has indeed a most difficult part to perform. He must be cautious in the extreme, and is under the habitual necessity of concealing his real sentiments. It is utterly impossible for these people to realize the state of affairs in the United States. We are political antipodes, and hence the great difficulty of maintaining those friendly relations which are so important to the interests of our country. I know not when the despatch was received containing a copy of Baron Sacken’s note to Mr. Brent, or what influence it might have had upon the negotiation had it reached him [Nesselrode] at an earlier period. Of this, however, I feel confident, that, if a copy of this note had been transmitted [to me] immediately after its receipt, this unpleasant interview might have been avoided altogether....

I would suggest the policy of advising the editor of the Globe to abstain at least from severe editorial paragraphs respecting the emperor of Russia. Neither the cause of Poland nor of human liberty could suffer by his silence in a country where there are so many faithful sentinels, and I should, by all means, advise the publication of a strong editorial paragraph in the Globe, expressing a proper sense of the good feelings of the emperor of Russia, evinced towards the United States in making us an exception to his general policy by concluding the commercial treaty. If this should be done, and more particularly if the President should, even in the slightest manner, allude to the circumstance in his inaugural address, it would be very grateful personally to the feelings of the emperor.

182I have felt it my duty to take measures, though they may be expensive to the Government, of having the semi-weekly Globe transmitted to me through the post-office from London. Will you be particular in giving directions that it shall be regularly forwarded from New York by every packet. It is true it will be read at the post-office here; but should it contain anything offensive, I shall know it almost as soon as this government and before the Russian minister at Washington can have an opportunity of transmitting any inflammatory commentaries. I assure you, I feel the delicacy of my position; but knowing your distinguished abilities and long experience, if I could but only attract your special regard to this mission, I think, between us, we might, in perfect consistency with the high and independent character of our own country, keep his imperial majesty in a state of better feeling towards us than almost any other nation. We have much to gain by such a course and nothing to lose.

I requested Mr. Vail, some time ago, to send me the semi-weekly Globe by mail from London. Although this may be expensive to the Government, it cannot be avoided, and it is absolutely necessary that I should receive it. It would seem, however, that the department has ceased forwarding them to London. Will you be kind enough to give directions that they shall be sent, in a separate parcel, by every Liverpool packet from New York.

GENERAL JACKSON’S SECOND ELECTION—GRAVE PUBLIC EVENTS AT HOME REFLECTED IN MR. BUCHANAN’S LETTERS FROM HIS FRIENDS—FEELINGS OF GENERAL JACKSON TOWARDS THE “NULLIFIERS”—MOVEMENTS IN PENNSYLVANIA FOR ELECTING MR. BUCHANAN TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES—HE MAKES A JOURNEY TO MOSCOW—RETURN TO ST. PETERSBURG—DEATH OF HIS MOTHER—SINGULAR INTERVIEW WITH THE EMPEROR NICHOLAS AT HIS AUDIENCE OF LEAVE.

Mr. Buchanan, as the reader has seen, went abroad in the spring of 1832. Events of great consequence occurred at home during his absence. The great debate in the Senate on nullification, between Mr. Webster and Col. Hayne, which took place in 1830, had not been followed in South Carolina by any surrender of the doctrine maintained by the Nullifiers. In November, 1832, the people of South Carolina, assembled in convention, adopted their celebrated ordinance which declared the existing tariff law of the United States null and void within her limits, as an unconstitutional exercise of power. General Jackson who had been re-elected President in the same month, defeating Mr. Clay and all the other candidates by a very large majority of the electoral votes, issued his proclamation against the Nullifiers on the 10th of December.^[34] Then followed the introduction of the “Force Bill” into the Senate in January, 1833; a measure designed to secure the collection of the revenue against the obstruction of the State laws of South Carolina; Mr. Webster’s support of this measure of the administration; and the consequent expectation of a political union between him and General Jackson. This union, however, was prevented by an irreconcilable difference between Mr. Webster and General Jackson and his friends on the subject of the currency 184and the Bank of the United States. In 1832 the President had vetoed a bill to continue the Bank in existence. Early in June the President left Washington on a tour to the Eastern States, and while in Boston, during the month of June, he determined to remove the public deposits from the Bank of the United States, and to place them in certain selected State banks. These events and the excitements attending them are touched upon in the private letters which Mr. Buchanan received from his friends, not the least interesting of which was one from General Jackson, expressing his feelings in regard to his proclamation in a very characteristic manner. From one of these letters, too, we may gather that steps were already taking to elect Mr. Buchanan to the Senate of the United States.

Dear Sir:—

Of course you receive regular files of American papers, and I shall therefore not be able to give you much news of a public or political nature.

Thinking, however, you may overlook some things of importance, I shall confine myself to them. The tariff bill, having passed in a modified form (reducing the duties on protected, and taking them off nearly altogether on unprotected articles, to the wants of the Government), it was supposed the excitement in the South would be allayed, if not entirely subdued; but this, I am sorry to say, has not been the case in South Carolina. Messrs. Hayne, Miller, McDuffie, etc., have published an address to the people of South Carolina, in which they state, that the protective system has now become the settled policy of the country, and advise an open resistance to the act. Their legislature will, I have no doubt, recommend the same course, and before another year, I am firmly of the opinion, rebellion will be the order of the day, accompanied with all its horrors. The moment that a drop of blood is shed by the South, in resisting the laws, there will be a general rising of the people, and where is the hand that will be able to stop the fearful wrath of the sovereign people? Duff Green, in his paper of yesterday, said: “That he will write as long as writing will be of any effect; when that ceases, he will adopt the sword. If South Carolina is to be sacrificed, the tyrant will be met on the banks of the Potomac, and many, very many, are the sons of her sister States who will rally beneath her standard. We say to her gallant sons, go on! Yours is the cause of liberty, and the eyes of all her votaries are upon you!”

When language like this is held by the leader of the party, at the seat of 185Government of the Union, under the immediate eyes of the heads of the nation, and suffered to pass unpunished, it is indeed time for the people seriously to think of a civil war. The leaders in this affair will have much to answer for, and be assured they will be held accountable.

The bank bill has passed, by a small majority, in both Houses of Congress, and the President (true to his principles) has returned it (without his signature) with his objections. There appeared to be great excitement at the time, but it was only occasioned by the brawling of the opposition. A large meeting was got up in Philadelphia, at which a few Jackson men of no note attended, but all would not do. The next week, the Jackson men met to express their opinions, and they resolved unanimously to support “Andrew Jackson, bank or no bank, veto or no veto.” At this meeting there were between ten and fifteen thousand people, citizens of the city and county, the largest meeting, I am told, that ever assembled in Philadelphia within the recollection of the oldest inhabitants.

Dear Sir:—

Your letter by Mr. Clay was handed me on his arrival. The fact of there being no means of conveyance, my not having ascertained Mr. Clay’s determination in regard to his return to you, and the immense and heavy pressure of public business have caused me to delay my reply. Nullification, the corrupting influence of the Bank, the union of Calhoun and Clay, supported by the corrupt and wicked of all parties, engaged all my attention. The liberty of the people requires that wicked projects, and evil combinations against the Government should be exposed and counteracted.

I met nullification at its threshhold. My proclamation was well timed, as it at once opened the eyes of the people to the wicked designs of the Nullifiers, whose real motives had too long remained concealed. The public ceased to be deluded by the promise of securing by nullification “a peaceful and constitutional modification of the tariff.”

They investigated the subject, and saw that, although the tariff was made the ostensible object, a separation of the confederacy was the real purpose of its originators and supporters.

The expression of public opinion elicited by the proclamation, from Maine to Louisiana, has so firmly repudiated the absurd doctrine of nullification and secession, that it is not probable that we shall be troubled with them again shortly.

The advices of to-day inform us that South Carolina has repealed her ordinance and all the laws based upon it.^[35] Thus die nullification and secession, 186but leave behind the remembrance of their authors and abettors, which holds them up to scorn and indignation, and will transmit them to posterity as traitors to the best of governments.

The treaty is as good a one as we could expect or desire, and if you can close the other as satisfactorily, it will be a happy result, and place you in the highest rank of our able and fortunate diplomatists.

Mr. Clay has conversed with me freely, and has determined, under all the circumstances, to return to you.

If Mr. Clay had not taken this determination, be well assured that your request in respect to his successor would have received my most anxious attention. You should have had one in whom you could with safety confide. I had thought of Mr. Vail, now at London, who has signified his inclination to remain abroad, as secretary of legation, when relieved by a minister.

Mr. Clay can be left as chargé-d’affaires when your duty to your aged mother may make it necessary for you to return to her and your country.

Knowing, as I do, that you will not leave your post until you bring to a close the negotiation now under discussion, I have said to the Secretary of State to grant you permission to return whenever you may ask it. But should an emergency arise which will render it inconvenient, if not impossible, for you to write and receive an answer from the state department before, from the feeble health of your mother, it may be necessary for you to return, you will consider yourself as being hereby authorized to leave the court of Russia, and return, leaving Mr. Clay in charge of our affairs there.

I must refer you to Mr. Clay, and the newspapers, which I have requested the Secretary of State to send you, for the news and politics of the day. I must, however, add, that in the late election, good old Democratic Pennsylvania has greatly increased my debt of gratitude to her, which I can only attempt to discharge by renewed and increasing vigilance and exertions in so administering the Government as to perpetuate the prosperity and happiness of the whole people.

Accept of my best wishes for your health and happiness, and for your safe return to your country and friends. Give my kind respects to Mr. Barry, and believe me to be sincerely

Dear General:—

I had the pleasure of receiving, by Mr. Clay, your kind letter of the 21st March. And here allow me to tender you my grateful thanks for the permission which you have granted me to return home. Indeed, I, for some time, had scarcely indulged the hope that I should be allowed to leave St. Petersburg before the next spring; this permission, therefore, was a most 187agreeable surprise, and adds another to the many obligations I owe to your kindness. I hope I may yet have an opportunity of displaying my gratitude by my actions.

Although I shall leave St. Petersburg with pleasure, yet I shall always gratefully remember the kindness with which I have been treated here. My great objection to the country is the extreme jealousy and suspicion of the government. A public minister, in order successfully to discharge his duties and avoid giving offense, must conceal the most ennobling sentiments of his soul. We are continually surrounded by spies, both of high and low degree in life. You can scarcely hire a servant who is not a secret agent of the police.

There is one mitigating circumstance in Russian despotism. In other portions of Europe we behold nations prepared and anxious for the enjoyment of liberty, yet compelled to groan beneath the yoke. No such spectacle is presented in this country. The most ardent Republican, after having resided here for one year, would be clearly convinced that the mass of this people, composed as it is of ignorant and superstitious barbarians, who are also slaves, is not fit for political freedom. Besides, they are perfectly contented. The emperor seems to me to be the very beau ideal of a sovereign for Russia, and in my opinion, notwithstanding his conduct towards Poland, he is an abler and a better man than any of those by whom he is surrounded. I flatter myself that a favorable change has been effected in his feelings towards the United States since my arrival. Indeed, at the first I was treated with great neglect, as Mr. Clay had always been. I was glad he returned. It would be difficult to find a more agreeable Secretary of Legation. I also entertain a very high opinion of Mr. Vail.

I sincerely rejoice that our domestic differences seem almost to have ended. Independently of their fatal influence at home, they had greatly injured the character of the country abroad. The advocates of despotism throughout Europe beheld our dissensions with delight; whilst the friends of freedom sickened at the spectacle. God grant that the restless spirits which have kindled the flame in South Carolina may neither be willing nor able to promote disunion by rendering the Southern States generally disaffected towards the best of governments.

Whilst these dissensions are ever to be deplored in themselves, they have been most propitious for your fame. We generally find but few extracts from American papers in the European journals; but whilst the South Carolina question was pending, your proclamation, as well as every material fact necessary to elucidate its history, was published on this side of the Atlantic. I have a hundred times heard, with pride and pleasure, the warmest commendations of your conduct, and have not met with a single dissenting voice. I was the other day obliged to laugh heartily at the sentiment of a Russian nobleman, which he considered the highest commendation. He said it was a pity that such a man as you had not been king of England instead of William the Fourth, for then Ireland would have been kept in good order and O’Connell would long since have been punished as he deserved.

188I might have told him you were not the stuff of which kings are made, and if you had possessed the power Ireland would have had her grievances removed and received justice, and that then there might have been no occasion for severity......

Dear Sir:—

I take the opportunity afforded by the return of Mr. Clay to St. Petersburg to write to you, in the certainty that the letter will be safely delivered.

The compromising tariff act passed at the last session has been accepted pretty generally at the South, and has been received at the North much better than I expected, so that the alarm and anxiety which existed on the subject have been removed.

Much clamor, however, is yet kept up at the South, including Virginia, on the subject of the President’s 10th December proclamation, and what is called the enforcing bill. The proclamation in my opinion contains the true Union doctrine, and does General Jackson great honor; and the enforcing bill was absolutely called for by the attitude which South Carolina had assumed. The State rights gentlemen, however, in the South, are for denying all right to the Union, as if the two governments were not formed by the same people and for their benefit. Absurd as these State rights doctrines are when carried fully out, I fear they will be pushed to an open rebellion by the Southern States before many years shall elapse.

I was in hopes that when Mr. Livingston went to France, as he will do probably in June next, that you would have been called to the Department of State, but it seems a different arrangement is to be made. Mr. McLane is to go to the Department of State, and it is said a gentleman from Pennsylvania, who has never been spoken of for the Treasury, is to be appointed to that department. As Dallas and Wilkins have been much talked of for this department, I am somewhat in hopes that the person referred to may be yourself. Be that as it may, I feel pretty confident that you will be elected to the Senate of the United States at the next meeting of the legislature, if you should be at home in season. They have made two or three trials to elect a senator during the session without effect, and from all I can learn the legislature will adjourn without making an election, so that the election will lie over until the next session.

Mrs. Pleasonton is now pretty well, though she has had several severe attacks in the course of the winter. Mathilda, with her husband, left us yesterday morning for Philadelphia. She had been ill for nearly two months, and was not able to leave us until yesterday. Augustus is exceedingly studious and is getting a good share of professional business. I have great hopes of him. Laura is still in Philadelphia, but will complete her education 189in the month of May. Mrs. P. intended to have written to you but she has not had it in her power, having been much engaged for Mathilda. I send you by Mr. Clay, copies, or rather duplicates, of two letters written to you some time ago about your accounts.

Mr. Clay can inform you of many particulars which will interest you, but I presume will say nothing of his friend [John] Randolph, who is now decidedly and zealously in the opposition. He was here lately and behaved in the most eccentric manner.

As you may not have seen all the documents communicated to Congress by the President in relation to South Carolina, I have determined to burthen Mr. Clay with them. They are accordingly enclosed.

With great regard, I remain, dear sir, your friend and obedient servant,

My Dear Sir:—

I think you are mistaken in supposing I should have been elected to the Senate had I been at home. The opposition against me from many causes would have been too strong. Indeed, I have an impression that my public career is drawing near its close, and I can assure you this feeling does not cost me a single pang. All I feel concerned about is to know what I shall employ myself about after my return. To recommence the practice of the law in Lancaster would not be very agreeable. If my attachments for that place as well as my native State were not so strong, I should have no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion. I would at once go either to New York or Baltimore; and even if I should ever desire to rise to political distinction, I believe I could do it sooner in the latter place than in any part of Pennsylvania. What do you think of this project? Say nothing about it. I have not written a word on the subject to any other person. I see the appointment of Judge Sutherland announced some weeks ago. Judging from the feelings displayed in the election of printers to Congress, I should not have been astonished at his election as Speaker by the next House of Representatives.

The winter here has been very long, but I have not at all suffered from the cold. The great thickness of the walls of the houses, their double windows and doors, and their stoves built of tile, render their houses much more comfortable in very cold weather than our own. They are always heated according to a thermometer, and preserved at an equal temperature. Indeed, I have suffered more from the heat than the cold during the winter. But its length has been intolerable. The Neva was frozen for nearly six months. It broke up on the 25th ultimo; but still, until within a few days, there is a little ice occasionally running which comes from the Lake Ladoga.

On the 9th instant the navigation opened at Cronstadt. Four noble American ships led the way, and with a fine breeze and under full sail they 190passed through the ice and made an opening for the vessels of other nations. The character of our masters of vessels and supercargoes stands much higher here than that of the same class belonging to any other nation. They have much more intelligence. This Court requires a man of peculiar talent. There are but few of our countrymen fit to be sent here as minister. Here the character of the country depends much upon that of the minister. The sources of information respecting our republican institutions which are open throughout the rest of Europe are closed in this country. A favorable impression must be made upon the nobility by personal intercourse, and in order that this may be done it is absolutely necessary that the minister should occasionally entertain them and mix freely in their society. Such is the difference between Russian and American society, I am satisfied that Levett Harris would be a more useful minister here than Daniel Webster. I make this remark on the presumption that for years to come we shall have no serious business to transact.

After looking about me here, I was much at a loss to know what course to pursue. Without ruin to my private fortune I could not entertain as others did. Not to entertain at all I might almost as well not have been here except for the treaty. After some time I determined that I would give them good dinners in a plain republican style, for their splendid entertainments, and the plan has succeeded. I have never even put livery on a domestic in my house;—a remarkable circumstance in this country.

I think I may say, I am a favorite here, and especially with the emperor and empress. They have always treated me during the past winter in such a manner as even to excite observation. I am really astonished at my own success in this respect, for in sober truth, I say that, in my own opinion, I possess but few of the requisites of being successful in St. Petersburg society. I trust and hope that I may be permitted to return to my beloved native land this fall; and if Providence should continue to bless my endeavors, I think the character of the United States will stand upon a fairer footing with his Imperial Majesty than it has ever done since his accession to the throne.

Mr. Randolph Clay returned here on the 19th, bringing me a great number of letters from my friends and the President’s permission to return home this fall. God willing! I shall be with you about the end of November. These letters hold out flattering prospects of my election to the Senate at the next session.

I confess I consider this event very doubtful, and shall take care not to set my heart upon it.

Mr. Barry leaves me to-day for London, and I have no time to add anything more. Please to write soon, and believe me ever to be your sincere friend,

P. S.—Remember me to Paulding, Patterson, Kittera and my other friends. I wrote once to the latter, but have never received an answer from him.

My Dear Sir:—

It affords me sincere pleasure to devote a portion of my early labors in this Department^[36] to you, whom I have known so long, and esteemed so highly. In one form or other you will hereafter receive more frequent communications from me, for I have already made a regulation by which a semi-monthly communication will be kept up from the Department with our principal ministers abroad. This is not only due to their character, but necessary to keep them informed of our principal domestic and foreign relations. This regulation will be independent of such special communications as the particular state of the missions respectively may [render] necessary.

You have no friend in this country who participated more sincerely than I in the success of your negotiation, and if the President needed anything to strengthen his friendship for you, or his confidence in your zeal and ability, your labors on that occasion would have afforded it. He has probably told you so himself, as I understood from him that he intended to write you.

...... The President is on a tour through the northern and eastern cities. He will go to Portland and thence up the lakes, through New York to Ohio and Pennsylvania, and expects to return here about the middle of July. I accompanied him as far as New York, and thence returned to my post. His health and spirits, notwithstanding the great fatigue to which he was perpetually exposed, had considerably improved, and I now have great hopes that he will derive advantage from his journey. His journey to New York was quite a triumphal procession, and his reception everywhere indescribably gratifying and imposing. The enthusiasm and cordial out-pouring of the kindest feelings of the heart, with which he was everywhere greeted, could not be exceeded, and the committees from the East, who met him in New York, assured us that a similar reception awaited his further progress. In Boston, both parties were emulating each other’s exertions, and Webster, it was understood, had cut short his tour in the West, in order to receive him.

This would be a sharp alliance, and yet it is altogether probable. On the part of Webster’s friends, it is ardently desired and incessantly urged; on his own part he affects to consider the President’s hostility to the bank as the only barrier. But I consider this only the last qualm of a frail lady, who notwithstanding, finally falls into the arms of the seducer. In the Senate, Webster’s accession may be important, in the country its effect will be at least doubtful; especially with the democracy of New England. If, however, the President can identify the power of his name and character and hold upon the affections of the people with any individual, all opposition, however 192combined, must be hopeless. It is evident to me that no man ever lived, who exerted the same influence over the great body of the people as General Jackson; and if he devote the remainder of his term to tranquilize the public mind, he will go into retirement with greater fame than any other man in our history. The bank is the only disturbing question, and that he might overthrow, after all its iniquities, without a jar, unless by premature changing the [deposits], he should seriously derange the business and currency of the country. He is strongly disposed to take that step, both from his own hostility to the institution, and from the importunate [advice] of many of his friends. It would, in my opinion, be injudicious and prejudicial to the community; but the probability is it will be done either before or immediately after the commencement of the next session of Congress.

The affairs in the South are once more tranquil, and nullification may be said to be extinct. There are men in that quarter, however, who seriously meditate further difficulties, and there is just reason to apprehend that these will not be satisfied short of a Southern convention, leading to a Southern confederacy.

The elements of popular excitement only are wanting to make their purpose discernible to all, and the grave question has been revived for this purpose. So far it has not been successful, though it is evidently making some impression in one or two of the States south of the Potomac, and you know better than I can tell you, that the spirit of revolution is progressive, though it may be slow.

On all other points, our affairs at home are prosperous, and the prospect gratifying; and the new lines of party will not be very distinctly defined until toward the close of the next session of Congress.

I saw, while in Philadelphia with the President, many of your friends, who affectionately inquired after you, and you may be satisfied that your absence from the country has not served to weaken their attachment.

Now, my dear sir, I have taken up already too much of your time with this uninteresting letter, and I will therefore relieve you from a greater part of it. I will only add the wish of Mrs. McL—— to be brought to your remembrance, and the assurance of the continued respect and regard with which I am unaffectedly your friend and servant,

The principal object of the mission being accomplished, Mr. Buchanan began his journey to Moscow early in June, and was absent from St. Petersburg about a month. In making selections from his journals and letters relating to this tour, as well as those which he kept on his travels homeward after he finally left Russia, I shall omit descriptions of places and countries that are now familiar to multitudes of Americans, and shall quote only those which are of interest because they give 193accounts of persons or things as they impressed him at the time, and which are out of the beaten path of guide books as they then were or have since become, or which relate to the public affairs of that period.

Left St. Petersburg and arrived at Novogorod about 12 midi on Wednesday. Visited the church of St. Sophia, said to be founded by Wladimir in 1040. His tomb, at which they say miracles are wrought, is in it. The paintings are numerous and barbarous. The interior has a rude magnificence. Went into the sanctum sanctorum, where women are never admitted. There they consecrate the Eucharist in the Greek Church, out of the view of the people; unlike the Latin in this respect. The priest afterwards carries it out on his head, to be adored by the people.

The sides of the western door are lined with bronze, from which jutted out in bronze a number of strange and barbarous figures not unlike those of Mexico. They must have been Christian and even Russian in their origin, as one of them represented an Archimandrite in full dress. The inscriptions were Sclavonian. Our guide said they were conquered from the Swedes by St. Wladimir. The church is west of the river. It and several other buildings are surrounded by a brick wall, with turrets, etc., etc., about twenty-five feet high and eighteen thick and nearly a mile in circumference, a ditch beneath.

There are also the remains of another rampart and ditch, a considerable distance from the former. The church of St. Sophia is surrounded by a dome and four cupolas of the character peculiar to Russia.

The former is gilt and the others plated with silver, so they say. The celebrated monastery of St. Anthony we did not visit. There is scarcely any appearance of ancient ruins to indicate the former greatness of Novogorod. This arises from the nature of the materials of which it was built.

On Wednesday night we stayed at Zaitsova, an excellent inn.

The public houses are generally bad, beyond what an American can have any idea of; nevertheless, a few on this road were good. This inn is maintained in a degree by the emperor.

The peasants are jolly, good-natured fellows, who drive furiously and seem happy. They are all rogues, nevertheless. In appearance and conduct they are very unlike those of Petersburg.

We arrived in Moscow at 10 o’clock A. M. The road is the best over which I have ever travelled. It is macadamized in the most perfect manner, and the traveller pays no toll. About 175 versts, or five posts, are yet unfinished between Chotilova and Tiver. This fraction is the old road and partly composed of sand, partly of the trunks of trees laid across, and partly of large stones, and in some places it is very bad. The posting is eight cents 194per verst for four horses and ten cents for the post adjoining St. Petersburg and Moscow.

The horses, though mean in their appearance, travel with great speed. They uniformly place the four abreast when travelling by post in Russia. The post-boys always cross themselves devoutly before ascending their seats; though they, in common with all the other Russian mousiques whom I have ever met, will cheat you if they can.

At every post station we found a number of these—with their long beards and their tanned sheepskins—ready to grease the carriage or perform any other menial service. At night they lie down on the road and around the post-houses, and sleep on the ground. Indeed Russians of the highest class appear to know little of the comforts of a good bed.

The country presents a forlorn aspect for 150 versts from St. Petersburg. It is both poor and flat, and the villages have a wretched appearance. They all consist of log huts with their gables towards the street. As you approach Waldi, the country becomes somewhat better and more undulating, and more attention seems to have been paid to its cultivation. It afterwards resumes its level appearance as you advance to Moscow, but still it is much better in every respect than near St. Petersburg. With a single exception we did not observe a nobleman’s seat along the whole route, and this one had a mean appearance. Nothing affords variety to the dull and monotonous scenery except the churches, which present the only interesting objects in the landscape.

Tiver is the principal town of the government of that name. It was finally conquered in 1483. The city is handsome and has the appearance of prosperity. It is situated on both sides of the Volga. When I approached this river, I could not resist the feeling of how strange it was that I should be on its banks.

We went to the promenade, at three versts from the city, on the Petersburg road.

We visited Madame S—— and had some conversation with her which would have been agreeable but for the constant interruption of a parrot which screeched as if it had been hired for the occasion. She had accompanied Mr. Wells of Philadelphia last year to the monastery of the Trinity. Her son is to go with us to the Kremlin to-morrow.

The appearance of Moscow must have greatly improved since its conflagration in 1812. It has lost, however, in a great degree, that romantic and Asiatic appearance which it formerly presented. The cumbrous and rude magnificence of palaces irregularly scattered among Tartar huts, has given place to airy and regular streets in all directions. It appears to be in a prosperous condition. That which chiefly distinguishes it from other cities is the immense number of churches. Their cupolas, of all colors and of all forms, rising above the summits of the houses and glittering in the sun, are very 195striking and imposing objects. In this respect no city in the world, except Constantinople, can be compared with it. In the evening we visited the Russian Theatre. Both the infernal regions and the Elysian fields were well represented on the stage.

It rained all day. Dined with Madame Novaselsoff. She is one of the three daughters of —— Orloff, the youngest brother of the three who left no son—immensely rich—had one son, an only child, who was killed in a duel some nine years ago. Aide-de-camp of Emperor—Ischermoff was his antagonist. Both fell. His mother lives upon his memory. She says she is now building two churches, one on the spot where he expired and the other on her estate—-a monument. She has established schools, one on the Lancasterian plan, among her peasants. I told her she ought to live for her peasants and consider them her children. Her example also might produce great effect. She said she had no object to live for, and when it was the will of God, she would go cheerfully; that her affections were fixed on another world. She had a full length likeness of her son in her parlor, and different other portraits of him scattered about; his drawings, etc., etc.

We visited the Foundling Hospital, or the Imperial House of Education, as it is called. We had a letter for Dr. Alfonskoi, the chief medical officer attached to the institution, and he, together with Baron Stackelberg, the superintendent, conducted us through the apartments. This hospital is the glory of Moscow and is the most extensive establishment of the kind in the world. It is perfectly well conducted in all its departments.

The object of the institution is twofold. The first is limited to the preservation of the lives of the foundlings and rearing them as peasants of the crown, and the second extends to their education and their freedom. The number of infants of the first description amounted to 6500 the last year. Each of these requires a separate nurse, and from the peculiar state of society in Russia, these are provided without the least difficulty. The peasant women throughout the province of Moscow (and others are excluded) come daily in considerable numbers to offer their services as nurses. Each one receives a foundling and after remaining with it a few weeks in the hospital, she and the child are sent to the village to which she belongs. For the maintenance of this child, until it attains the age of twelve years, she receives five roubles per month, or sixty per annum. Three thousand foundlings had been received during the present year. The boys and girls thus raised are sent upon the lands of the crown and become peasants. The former are not exempted from serving in the army.

It was quite a novel spectacle for me to pass through the long ranges of women, with infants in their arms, or in the cradle. Everything was clean and in good order; though the women were anything but good-looking.

I believe most of the children received are legitimate, of poor parents. It 196is called the Imperial House of Education, not a foundling hospital, and the former name is more applicable to it than the latter.

They borrow at 4 and lend at 5; not 5 and 6, as the Guide says.

Baron Stackelberg told Mr. G. that the institution had 7,000,000 roubles clear after all expenses at the end of each year—sed quere.

The second class are very different from the first. They consist of those foundlings for whom 150 roubles are advanced at the time they enter the establishment. But as the institution can accommodate a greater number than are sent to it upon these terms, the deficiency is supplied by selections made sometimes from children of the first class, but most generally from those of poor parents of Moscow. These all continue in the institution until they receive their education. They are free when they depart from it and are not liable to be drafted as soldiers. A sufficiently accurate account of these is to be found in the Guide. There are at present 550 boys and as many girls of this description.

We dined with Dr. Alfonskoi. His wife is a communicative, agreeable woman who expresses her opinion freely upon all subjects. Whilst at table I received the impression from her conversation that she took me for an Englishman, notwithstanding I had been introduced to her as the American minister. I did not consider this remarkable, from the ignorance which prevails throughout this country concerning the United States. On the evening of this day I had a still more decided example. Mr. G. and myself went to pay a visit to “The Prince Ouroussoff, master of the court of his I. M., and senator.” Whilst I was conversing with the daughter, the princess asked Mr. G. if the United States still belonged to England. He replied that they were independent and constituted a separate government. She said this must have been since 1812, and when he informed her that their independence had been recognized by England since 1783, she was much astonished. Among other things she wished to know whether they spoke the English language in America.

We visited the Souchareva Bashnia. This is a lofty and extensive building on an elevated position, in the second story of which is the reservoir to supply the city with water. This is brought eighteen versts. The top of the edifice affords a fine view of the city.

All the buildings of this establishment escaped the conflagration of 1812. They contain at present a population of more than 5,000, and have a distinct police.

Before breakfast I visited the mineral-water establishment. It is situated near the Moscow, about four versts above the Kremlin. There you find waters of twenty-four different kinds prepared in imitation of those which are most celebrated throughout Europe. I took a glass of Carlsbad, the taste of which reminded me of that of Saratoga. Indeed the whole scene resembled that exhibited there. There were a great number of ladies and gentlemen 197walking in the promenades, drinking and talking; but the ladies of Saratoga were not there. The water is drawn by cocks from different vessels prepared for containing it, and placed contiguous to each other in a row.

This establishment has been recently made by a joint stock company. The emperor has subscribed a number of shares. In St. Petersburg they are about to get up a similar establishment. There were to be six hundred shares at five hundred roubles each; but three times that amount was subscribed at once. Dr. Myer, whom I met there to-day, is now here as agent from St. Petersburg to gain information, and observe the operation of the establishment at Moscow.

We ascended the belfry of Ivan Vélikoi (Jean le Grand). It receives its name from the Church of St. John, which it surmounts. From there we had another fine view of the city. There are thirty-one bells in the belfry. All in the Kremlin are collected in it.—Vide the Guide.

From thence we proceeded to the treasury of the Kremlin and examined its contents. It is fully described in the Guide, with the exception of some things which have been added since its publication.

These are chiefly the trophies of the conquest of poor unhappy Poland. They are the two thrones—the sceptre, the globe, and the sword of the emperor of Russia as king of Poland, which have been brought from Warsaw.

The portraits of all the kings of Poland are now hung up in their order in this Russian arsenal where the treasure is kept. We saw there also the flags which had been presented to the Polish army by the Emperor Alexander, and also the original constitution of Poland on the floor at his feet. It was placed there by the express command of his present majesty.

The glorious standard of Poland which waved triumphantly over many a well fought field, but which the most exalted courage and self-devotion could no longer maintain against brutal and barbarian force, is there exhibited. The white eagle has been obliged to cower beneath the double-headed monster of Russia. May it again soar! though to all human appearance it has sunk forever.

The head of John Sobieski is one of the most noble and commanding I have ever beheld. The famous standard which he took from the Turks at Vienna when Poland saved Europe from the sway of the Infidel, is now in the same hall with the portrait of the hero and the king who commanded her army on that celebrated day. We afterwards visited the ancient and the modern palaces. The contrast between the two exhibits the change between ancient and modern times in striking colors. In one of the rooms of the latter, among other ancient portraits, we saw one of the Princess Sophia. She was an extraordinary woman, and must have had a very fine face. I have an interest in this woman, and am willing to disbelieve the crime which Peter the Great attributed to her, of an intention to assassinate him. How must her proud and ambitious spirit have been chafed by being confined to a monastery after having reigned with so much distinction. Accompanied 198by Mr. Thal, we rode out of the Barrier de Drogomirov, two or three versts on the road to Smolensko, to the summit of the last of three hills which rise gradually above each other, from whence we had a fine view of the city. It was from this quarter that the French entered. Bonaparte slept the first night at Petrovski, a place near the St. Petersburg road, about three versts from the city.

I went with Mr. Gretsch, the editor of the Bee at St. Petersburg, to see the famous monastery of Novo Devitcher where we saw the tomb of the Princess Sophia, who took the veil under the name of Suzanna, and was buried in 1704. For the rest, see the Guide, 183, 184. Mr. G. and myself visited and went through the mosque. In this country, all churches must be open. Unfortunately we arrived a little too late for the service.

John the Third, in 1473, married the Princess Sophia, the daughter of Thomas Paléologus Porphyrogénétus, who was the brother of Constantine Paléologus, who died in 1453, whilst seeing his capital fall under the dominion of the Turks. By his unison with the last descendant of the Paléologus, John the Third considered himself as the heir of their crown, and after his marriage he substituted the eagle with two heads for the cavalier which was then the arms of the grand principality, and it was then that he took the title of Tsar.

This Mr. Gretsch is the editor of the Northern Bee of St. Petersburg, the principal Russian journal. He is also on a visit here for the first time. He came up to me the other day at the Treasury and introduced himself, since when he has been uncommonly kind. He appears to be, for I know not what he is, a frank, open-hearted, talkative, well-informed person, but something of a bore. He laughingly styled the sultan this morning “our Governor General of Turkey.” I am persuaded this is now the feeling in Russia. They believe themselves to be already the virtual masters of Constantinople.

Mr. G. and myself afterwards went to the Mountain of Sparrows. It is on the southwest of the city opposite or nearly so the monastery of Novo Devitcher. From thence you have the best view of Moscow, and it is truly a beautiful and magnificent spectacle. It was here that they commenced the foundation of the cathedral of St. Sauveur, in consequence of a vow of the Emperor Alexander during the French war; but it has been discontinued, and will be erected in another part of the city. The place was found to be too extensive and too expensive, though the vow was to build the greatest and most magnificent church in Russia.

We next visited the garden of Niéschouchin, from whence also we had another fine view of the city. We there saw a theatre sub Jove.

The opinion of Dr. Alfonskoi on the cholera is that it arises in all cases from a defect of heat in the system, and his universal remedy, after he came to understand the disease, was the hot, very hot bath. He is fully convinced 199it was not contagious. It seized on those whose digestive powers had been enfeebled by drunkenness or high living. I told him of Dr. Stevens’ saline treatment, and he said, from the development of heat, [which] the salt produced in the system, it might have been a good remedy. The cholera, Dr. A. thinks, came from the earth, is connected with gravity. The grip is its opposite and is connected with electricity. This last the best evidence that the cholera has finally disappeared. The stomach the root, as of a tree, etc.

I went to the English chapel, and heard an excellent, animated, evangelical discourse, from the Rev. Matthew Camidge, the pastor. His text was 2 Peter 3d chapter, from —— to ——. It was on the subject of the long suffering of God with sinners, and the repentance to which this should naturally lead, etc., etc. The judgment-day will come by surprise as many temporal judgments do after long suffering.

There is to be a theatrical entertainment this evening in the open air, at the garden of Nieschouchin, and afterwards a party at Madame Paschkoff’s. My old Presbyterian notions will prevent me from attending either. After church I paid some visits to the Skariatines, etc.

The English chapel was consumed in the conflagration of 1812, and has been rebuilt but a few years since. It contains no organ. They sing well. The pastor receives about £200, the half of which comes from England. I was struck with the solemnity of this little congregation in a strange land. May God be with them! It was the most impressive sermon I have heard since I left America.

We visited, in company with Mr. Gretsch, and particularly examined the interior of the cathedrals of the Annunciation, of the Assumption, and of St. Michael the Archangel. They are sufficiently described in the Guide. We also visited the ancient palace of the Patriarchs, and saw everything that was contained therein. The apartments of his holiness were very small and simple, though the state rooms must have been considered magnificent in Russia a century and a half ago. We there saw the apparatus for making the holy oil, which is distributed throughout Russia. It is only prepared once in three years. How wise it was in Peter the Great to abolish the Patriarchate! Few men would have had the courage to make the attempt. From the ignorance of the Russians and their proneness to superstition, he must have continued to be as he formerly was, the rival of the czars themselves.

From thence we went to the Alexander Institution, so called after his majesty. Whilst the cholera raged in Moscow, many of the children of poor noble families were deprived of their parents, and thus became destitute orphans. To relieve their wants and furnish them with an education, this institution was first established by the present emperor. Being pleased with 200its operation, he has made it permanent. The orphan children of poor nobles from any part of the empire are now received there, and all their expenses defrayed. The emperor purchased for the purposes of this institution the house and grounds of a nobleman, Count Rasoumoffsky, for which he gave 1,200,000 roubles B. A.

The extent of these private establishments of the Russian nobility may be judged of, from the circumstances that this house and the adjacent buildings appertaining to it now, accommodate 250 boys and as many girls, with all the necessary professors and domestics.

Here the former are taught the Russian, French, German and Latin languages; geometry, geography, drawing, dancing, etc., etc., and the latter are instructed in all these branches, except Latin and geometry, and in the other accomplishments which more particularly belong to females. There are three classes of each.

We heard the first class of the young ladies examined in French and geography, and then specimens of their drawing, embroidery and other needle-work were exhibited to us. They acquitted themselves very creditably. They also played for us on the piano. As a compliment to myself, they were examined on the geography of the United States. What struck me with great force, was that the little girls in the second and third classes recited pieces from the French and German, as well as the Russian, with apparent facility, and so far as I could judge, with a perfect accent.

They certainly have the most wonderful talent for acquiring languages of any people in the world.

We afterwards went through the apartments of the boys and heard them examined. One of the boys was asked who was the greatest man that America had produced, and he promptly answered Washington. The thrill of delight which I experienced at the moment, I shall not undertake to describe. He hesitated in his answer to the second question, who was the next, as probably many Americans would; and was then asked who was the celebrated ambassador of the United States at Paris, to which he replied Franklin. He first said Ptolemy Philadelphus, but corrected himself immediately.

The most imposing spectacle I witnessed here was all the girls collected at dinner. They were all dressed alike, in green frocks and white aprons, which came over their arms. When we entered, they were all ranged at their different places and were standing up. Those who were distinguished, were placed at two small tables in the centre. Previous to taking their seats, they sang a hymn in Russian as a blessing. Their performance was excellent. Here the goodness and piety of the female heart shone out in a striking manner. The little girls exhibited the warmest and most lively devotion, and frequently crossed themselves with all that sincerity and ardor of manner which can never be counterfeited at their age. The dinner was very good. One circumstance is worthy of remark. Mr. Gretsch made a little address in Russian to one of the female classes, which Mr. Guerreiro understood. 201He informed them that I was the minister of the United States, a great and powerful republic. That the people there were well educated and well informed; but that every person had to labor. That their Government was a good one; but no paternal emperor existed there, who would become the father of orphans and educate them at his own expense. He concluded by impressing upon their minds how grateful they ought to be to the emperor, and how much a monarchical government ought, on this account, to be preferred to a republic.

The emperor is very fond of this institution, of which he is the founder. Indeed, in different forms and in different manners nearly all the children of the Russian nobility of both sexes are educated in imperial institutions, and in some degree at the expense of the government. We visited the garden where there was a considerable number of very little boys and girls too young for any of the classes. It is the emperor’s delight, they say, to go among them and play with them, to he down upon the ground and let them cover him, and to toss them about in all directions. From all I have heard, a great fondness for children is one of the traits of the emperor’s character. He is quick and warm in his feelings, and at the moment of irritation would be severe: but his passion soon subsides, and the empress receives great credit for correcting this fault in his temper. I am more and more convinced every day that he could have pursued no other course with safety towards the Poles than that which he did. The bitterness against them is extreme, and there is scarcely a monument of antiquities in the Kremlin which does not relate to battles lost and won between the two nations. Their mutual enmity is truly hereditary. The emperor advances two hundred thousand roubles per annum to this institution, and has lately given it a million of roubles, which is to accumulate for the purpose of forming a capital for its support. The foundation of a new and extensive building has already been laid for the better accommodation of the pupils.

The chamberlain, Tchenchine, is the principal director, and Mr. Davydoff the chief professor, with both of whom I was much pleased, as well as with Madame Tchenchine, the wife of the former.

From thence, accompanied by Messrs. Tchenchine and Davydoff, we visited the Armenian institution, founded in 1806 by the Messieurs Lazareff, wealthy Armenian noblemen, for the benefit chiefly of native Armenians, wheresoever they may be scattered. The memoir presented to me by Mr. D. will sufficiently explain the object of it. There you saw in the form and in the face of the pupils the Asiatic traits. One of them, a native of Calcutta, spoke English to me. There are several private institutions for the education of youth at Moscow, founded by private munificence, and whether ostentation may have been the moving cause or not, still they are very valuable to the community. We partook here of an elegant déjeuner-à-fourchette. There are now forty-five scholars gratis and twenty-five who pay fifty roubles per month, in the institution, so says Mr. Davydoff.

We dined to-day with the governor-general, Prince Galitzine, and a 202select party. He is a dignified gentleman of the old school, with great simplicity of manners, and is revered by the people high and low of the city and province of Moscow. He speaks English tolerably well, and we had much conversation concerning the United States. He commanded the cavalry at the battle of Borodino, and represented it, as it has been always represented, as a most murderous battle on both sides.

We spent the evening at Prince Ourousoff’s. I had almost forgot to mention that in our visits to the cathedrals and the patriarchal palace we were accompanied by Mr. Polevoy, the editor of the Moscow Telegraph, at Moscow, who is engaged in writing a history of Russia, and by another savant, Professor John Snéquireff.

The former gave me several exemplaries of Russian antiquities as a souvenir.

Mr. Gretsch, Mr. Guerreiro and myself set out for the Trostza monastery, a place famous in Russian history. It is sixty-two versts north of Moscow. We left by the barrier of Trostza. We found the road covered with numerous parties of pilgrims on foot, going to pay their devotions at the shrine of St. Sierge, the founder. The women were, I think, nearly ten to one for the men. In ancient times the sovereigns of Russia used to go on foot from Moscow to worship at this shrine; the pious Catharine was, I believe, the last who performed this pilgrimage in this manner.

The villages and churches along the road are nearly all celebrated in Russian history. At about seven versts from the principal convent there is a monastery for nuns dependent upon it. We found the church at this monastery crowded with pilgrims, crossing themselves; many were on their knees before the pictures, and the most devout touched the floor with their foreheads. There is nothing in the Greek liturgy which sanctions the worship of these pictures. Indeed, images are excluded. It was, however, impossible to resist the belief that these poor creatures considered them something more than mere pictures.

When we arrived at Trostza we found that the governor-general had sent an officer to show me all the antiquities and curiosities of the place; and had not Mr. Guerreiro told them in my absence that he knew it would be disagreeable to me, I should have been received by a military guard. I thus avoided what to me would have been unpleasant.

We were first presented to the Reverend Father Antoine, the archimandrite or abbot of the monastery. In my life I have never beheld a more heavenly expression of countenance. It spoke that he was at peace with heaven and with his fellow-men, and possessed a heart overflowing with Christian benevolence and charity. He spoke no French nor English, and my conversation with him was through Mr. Gretsch as interpreter. He is very intelligent and perfectly modest and unassuming in his manners. In his appearance he is not more than thirty-five. His long beard was of a most beautiful chestnut color, and made his appearance venerable notwithstanding 203his comparative youth. I shall never forget the impression which this man made upon me.

He showed us all the antiquities himself; and first we made a circuit on the ancient wall. It is a mile round and at least twenty-two feet thick, and its great glory is that the Poles have never been able to pass it. This he communicated to us with evident satisfaction. It was in ancient times the strongest fortification in Russia, and was perfectly impregnable before the use of artillery. An imperial palace formerly existed within it, not a trace of which now remains.

St. Sierge was a pious and patriotic hermit who, in the reign of Dimitri Danshoy, retired to this spot, which was then a wilderness. Some well authenticated facts exist which may well inspire a superstitious people with great veneration for this spot. Among others of a recent date, when the plague raged in Moscow during the days of the Empress Catharine, notwithstanding the gates of the monastery were always open to the crowds of pilgrims who then frequented the shrine, no case of plague occurred within the walls. The same may be observed in regard to the recent cholera.

After the circuit of the walls, we passed through the different churches. That where the reliques of St. Sierge are deposited was much crowded. His shrine is very rich. The church was crowded with pilgrims.

The interior of these churches resembles the others we had seen. The iconostase is the covering ascending from the floor to the summit, which conceals from public view the place where the sacrament is consecrated. Upon it are uniformly painted, in several rows, holy pictures of the Virgin and of the saints. In the ancient churches these are sufficiently rude and barbarous, but richly ornamented.

In passing from one church to another we saw a square brick wall covered with boards, but without any inscription, which contains the remains of Boris Goudounoff and his family. The bodies of the father and the son were taken by the fury of the people from the cathedral of St. Michael, where they were deposited with those of the other czars, and were afterwards brought to Trostza. They were formerly within the walls of a church; but, it needing repairs, in the time of the madman Paul, he ordered the walls which extended over these remains to be taken down, and the limits of this church to be restricted so as to leave them without a covering. Whilst the good archimandrite was relating this circumstance, he was evidently much affected by the barbarity of the action. This was done because Paul believed Goudounoff to be a usurper.

He has been charged with the crime of having caused the murder of the true Dimitri, the last branch of the family of Rurick. But this is a most obscure period of Russian history, and their great historian, Karamsin, leaves the question in doubt. In all other respects he was an excellent sovereign, and Peter the Great always spoke of him in terms of the highest respect.

We afterwards visited the sacristy and there saw a great many splendid sacred robes and vessels. All the sovereigns in succession of the house of 204Romanoff have presented their gifts, with the exception of Peter the Great, and there are several prior to that period. The specimens of embroidery wrought by the Empresses Elizabeth, Anne and Catharine the Second are very rich and magnificent. Peter the Great deprived this monastery of all its disposable wealth for which he gave them receipts, and Catharine took their lands and their peasants from them. But Peter built a church there, at least so the archimandrite said, and pointed it out to us.

The greatest curiosity in the sacristy is the miraculous crystal, or white stone, in the body of which is clearly defined and represented in black a monk in his black robes kneeling before a crucifix. It requires no effort of the imagination to present this spectacle to the eye. It is clearly and distinctly defined. I examined this stone with great care, and certainly but with little faith, and yet I am under the impression that the likeness of the monk and the crucifix are contained in the very body of the crystal itself, and are not artificial...... Nature, amid the infinite variety of her productions, has given birth to this curious piece of workmanship. The Father Antoine, in a solemn and impressive manner, presented each of us with a consecrated picture of St. Sierge.

The Father Antoine then accompanied us to that portion of the buildings destined for the students of divinity, of which there are 100 at Trostza, and the same number of monks. There we were presented to the archimandrites; Polycarpe, rector of the ecclesiastical academy, a fat and jolly-looking monk, who laced his tea strong with cherry brandy and took his wine kindly; to Peter, ancient archimandrite of the Russian mission at Peking, who has a long white beard and venerable appearance, and read Chinese aloud for our amusement; to Neophyte, formerly substitute of Peter at Peking; and to the monk Tsidore, librarian of the ecclesiastical academy. Their wine and their tea were both excellent, and we spent an hour or two very pleasantly with them. There is a room in these apartments, the ceiling of which contains paintings of the different exploits of Peter the Great; a tribute of his daughter, the Empress Elizabeth. Upon taking leave, Polycarpe presented me several treatises in Russ as a keepsake. Upon taking leave of Antoine, I submitted to be kissed by him according to the Russian fashion, first on the right cheek, then on the left, and then on the mouth. This was my first regular experiment of the kind.

We dined at Mr. Cavenaugh’s with a party of English. Among others I met Mr. Camidge there. His appearance, manners and conversation in private society did not answer the expectations I had formed of him from his preaching.

On the 20th of June we left Moscow at eight in the evening, and arrived at St. Petersburg on Monday, the 24th, at 2 P. M., having slept two nights on the road. At Vouischnije Volotschok we saw the sluice connecting the Tivortza with the Atsta. It can only be used by vessels going towards St. Petersburg.

205The following letter to one of his Pennsylvania friends was written immediately after his return to St. Petersburg.

My Good Friend:—

It was with no ordinary pleasure that I received a letter by Mr. Clay with your well-known superscription. You make a strong mark, and your writing would be known among a thousand. I now have the joyful anticipation of being ere long once more among you. A land reposing under the calm of despotism is not the country for me. An American of proper feelings who visits any portion of Europe, must thank his God that his lot has been cast in the United States. For my own part, I feel that I am a much greater Republican than ever.

I hope with the blessing of Heaven to be able to leave St. Petersburg in perfect consistency with the interests of my country some time during the next month. I shall then spend a few weeks in seeing other parts of Europe, and embark for home the last of October or beginning of November.

I have recently returned from a short excursion to Moscow; the city which rolled back the tide of victory upon Napoleon. St. Petersburg is a cosmopolite city; but at Moscow you see Russia. It is a most picturesque and beautiful city. Its numerous churches surmounted by cupolas of every form and of every color give it a romantic and an Asiatic appearance. Many of these are gilt, and when the rays of the sun are reflected from them, the eye is dazzled with the richness and splendor of the spectacle. From Moscow I made a pilgrimage to the shrine of St. Sierge, a distance of forty miles. Going and returning I suppose we saw ten thousand pilgrims upon the way. They were chiefly of the fair sex, and nearly all on foot. This shrine is at the Monastery of the Trinity, a place famous in Russian history, having been at the same time a convent, a palace, and a fortification. Here the family of the czars have often taken refuge. In passing round on the top of the walls with the abbot (which is more than a mile in circumference), he told me in a tone of triumph and national antipathy that these walls had never been taken by the Poles; on taking leave he presented me with a consecrated picture of St. Sierge, and from him I submitted to the operation of being kissed, first on the right cheek, then on the left, and finally plump on the mouth. This is the general custom of the country; but it was my first experiment of the kind. The pious Catharine, although she seized the peasants and the broad acres of this monastery, made a pilgrimage on foot from Moscow to the shrine of St. Sierge. But enough of this bagatelle.

On Saturday last, the 29th ultimo, we had news from New York via London up till the 1st, a wonderfully short passage. We then heard of the death of Randolph, and of the appointment of Mr. Duane as Secretary of the Treasury. I have no doubt the latter will make a good officer, and he shows 206great courage in undertaking the Treasury at the present moment. My best wishes attend him.

I think it more than probable that my political life is drawing to a close, and I confess I look upon the prospect without regret. Office is not necessary for my happiness. I can enjoy myself with the blessing of God, under my own vine and my own fig tree. Whoever embarks on the stormy ocean of politics must calculate to make a shipwreck of contentment and tranquility. I have served the old hero faithfully and zealously, and he has done more for me than I could have expected. But I hope ere long to talk over my travels and my ups and downs along with Edwards and yourself and a few other friends in the good old county of Delaware. By the bye, I have a crow to pick with Edwards. I wrote to him and he has never answered my letter.

I am obliged to write at full gallop. Safe opportunities are so rare, and when they occur, so much of my time is taken up in writing despatches, that I have but little left for my private friends.

Remember me kindly to Edwards and his charming wife, to Dick, the doctor, your brothers, Kane, Lescine, Judge Engle, and my other friends. Please to present my most respectful compliments to Mrs. Leiper, and believe me, in whatever land my lot may be cast, to be always your friend,

The following brief account of one of the national fêtes is recorded soon after his return to St. Petersburg:

The English palace was provided for the reception of the Diplomatic Corps, where we lived with Count Daschkaw, the grand master of ceremonies, Count Matuscervie, and some masters of the court. Everything was provided for us in handsome style, for which, according to custom, I paid the court servants two hundred roubles at my departure.

In the morning we went to visit the gardens upon singular vehicles on four wheels and drawn by two splendid horses. I can describe it no better than by imagining a double sofa with a single back, on which ten of us could sit back to back comfortably, five on each side. The foot-board was within about a foot of the ground.

The water-works are the chief object of attraction. The water is conveyed in a canal for the distance of about thirty versts to the palace of Peterhoff, which is situate at the summit and on the brink of the second bank of the Gulf of Finland. From it there is a steep descent of about thirty feet to the extensive plain on the southern shore of the Gulf, which is covered by the immense garden. It is this descent which has enabled them to present so many varieties of water-works. In the gardens above, on a level with the palace (the English garden), the water is tastefully distributed into several lakes, etc.

207The water falls in several broad sheets over different steps immediately in front of the palace. One range of these is gilt, and in a clear day must present a splendid spectacle. They place candles under the shutes of the water and thus have an illumination under the water, which did not, however, produce the effect I expected.

There are many long walks in the gardens, I should say more than a verst in length, at the intersection of which are little lakes, and in the centre of them jet d’eaus.

On the sides of these walks, and all around the little lakes, were frame-works to a considerable elevation, destined for the candles.

We rode all through these different walks. In front of one of the lakes stands the little palace of Marly, built by Peter the Great. Everything is preserved there just as he left it; and it was curious to observe the progress of luxury in comparing his clothing and accommodations with those of the imperial family in the present day. There is a carp which has been in the lake for a century, with a collar round its neck. It, with others, comes to the edge of the water at the sound of a bell, every morning, to receive its breakfast.

We went over to the ball about eight in the evening, where the emperor and empress and the rest of us polonaised, and all things were conducted as on the 1st January, only the crowd was not so great. After supper, about half-past eleven, the emperor, empress, Prince Albert of Prussia, and other members of the I. F., mounted one of these vehicles. They were followed in others by the members of the court of D. C., and thus we slowly promenaded through all these walks, the sides of which were covered by immense crowds of spectators. The effect of the illumination was brilliant. The Grand Duke Michel was on horseback, and great precautions were evidently taken, on account of the Polish conspiracy.

About half-past one we ended. The distance to Peterhoff 26 versts. Mr. Lander and Captain Ranlett, Americans, were there in the ball room, in dominos, etc., etc.

Sir:—

On the 28th ultimo I had an interview with Count Nesselrode on the subject of the application which I made on the 5–17 May, in behalf of Messrs. Shaw & Co., of Boston. The question has not yet been decided.

After the conversation upon this subject, the count informed me that Baron Krudener, in his last despatch, had acknowledged the receipt of the emperor’s ratification of the treaty, and on the first instant I received a note from him communicating the intelligence that the ratifications had been exchanged 208at Washington on the 11th of May. At this interview I had hoped he would say something concerning the proposed treaty on neutral rights, and gave the conversation such a turn as would naturally lead to the subject.

I enquired when the emperor would leave St. Petersburg. He answered that his majesty would not set out upon his journey into the interior until after the commencement of August. I then replied that before his departure, I should solicit my audience of leave, as I intended to return to the United States during the approaching autumn.

He expressed his regret at my determination and their satisfaction with my conduct as a minister; but made no allusion whatever, either to the treaty or to my note of the 18–30 of May. I felt that it would not be becoming for me again to press this subject upon his attention, and thus we parted.

Perhaps it might have been better under the circumstances not to have attempted a renewal of the negotiation at the present moment.

This government has, for some time, been in possession of secret information which has given them much concern.

The impression is that it was first communicated to the emperor by Louis Philippe. A number of Poles at Paris, driven to desperation by their sufferings, have solemnly sworn before God, and pledged themselves to each other, to assassinate the emperor, at any personal peril.

The first intimation which the public had of the existence of the conspiracy was the publication on the 8–20 June, in the St. Petersburg Journal, of an address presented to the emperor at Helsingfors, during his late visit to Finland; the subject was again referred to in the succeeding number of the 15–27 of the same month. I herewith transmit you both these numbers.

From the desperation of the Poles, and their determined character, this information has excited considerable alarm in St. Petersburg. The people here, whilst they admire and respect the emperor as the author of their security and prosperity, look with fearful apprehension to the future, in the event of his assassination.

The heir apparent is yet a minor, and although he possesses a most amiable disposition, it is believed he is deficient both in talent and strength of character. The Grand Duke Michel, who would become regent, is as universally disliked as the emperor is esteemed. Indeed, in such an event, many of the foreigners in St. Petersburg, knowing the deadly hostility felt against them by the lower orders of Russians, would entertain serious apprehensions for their lives and their property. Such is the miserable condition of despotism; and such is the feeling here, at the very moment when this government, more by its superior policy than its power, has acquired a commanding influence throughout Europe.

Still greater precautions now exist than did formerly, in regard to the admission of strangers into the country. The emperor no longer appears in the streets like a private citizen. It is said that he is always surrounded by guards. But from what I have heard, he rather submits to these regulations 209of his ministers than approves of them himself. He is a bold and fearless man, and manifests no apprehension whatever. If the Poles have determined to play the part of Scaevola, he at least will not enact that of Porsenna.

Three of the conspirators have been seized in Russia. After all I cannot feel that there is much danger. I send you the Journal of yesterday, containing our latest news from Constantinople.

This despatch will be carried to London by Mr. Gibson, our consul. He has been ill for some time, and his disease is, I fear, now approaching its crisis. He is very feeble, has a bad cough, and throws up much blood. His physician informed him that his only hope was to leave St. Petersburg, and that immediately. Mr. Clay will perform his duties during his absence, and we are both happy to render all the services in our power to so worthy a man and so good an officer.

After having written the foregoing, I had the pleasure of receiving your Despatch No. 11, dated on the 30th April. It has been long on the passage. By the Hamburg Reporter received on the 29th ultimo, we had New York dates, via London, up till the first of that month.

On the 19th of July, Mr. Buchanan received the melancholy news that his mother had died in the previous May.

My Dear Brother:—

I received your kind letters, of the 7th and 17th May, on yesterday afternoon; the latter communicating the melancholy intelligence of mother’s death.^[37] The news was a severe and unexpected blow. I had hoped, by the blessing of God, to see her once more on this side of eternity. Indeed, this desire was one of the chief reasons which made me so reluctant to spend another winter in Russia.

210But it has been the will of the Almighty to take her to Himself, and we must bow in humble reverence. I received at the same time a letter from Mr. Henry, which gave me the consolatory assurance that she had died the death of a Christian, and that her latter end was peace.

It is my present intention to leave St. Petersburg on the 7th August, and I feel almost confident, with the blessing of Heaven, that I shall be able with propriety, to bring all the business of my mission to a close before that day.

My present purpose is to go by the steamboat to Lubeck, and thence by Hamburg, Amsterdam, the Hague, and Brussels to Paris, where I shall probably spend a fortnight. I shall then proceed to London, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Belfast and Dublin, from which city I intend to cross over to Liverpool, and sail for New York by the packet of the 24th October. It is my intention, if possible, to see Romilton and Derry. I hope to reach the United States in the beginning of December.

I have recently returned from a very agreeable excursion to Moscow; but I must defer a description of this city, the ancient capital of the czars, until we meet again. Whilst there, I visited the celebrated monastery of Iwitza, at the distance of forty miles. In the estimation of the Russians, it is a very holy place. It was anciently a strong fortress, which contained a palace as well as a convent, and is much connected with the history of Russia. The sovereigns formerly made pilgrimages on foot from Moscow to the shrine of St. Sierge, at this monastery. The Empress Catharine the Second, was the last who performed this act of devotion. Going and returning there, I am confident we met at the least 10,000 pilgrims on foot. They appeared to be of a low order of people, and the great majority were females.

I have but little time before the departure of the boat, and must close. Remember me affectionately to my sister, I don’t know her Christian name, to the Doctor and Maria. I am glad to hear that the latter are so comfortably situated, and hope you may all live together in Christian peace and in prosperity. Remember me kindly to Judge and Mrs. Shippen, Mr. and Mrs. Barlow, and believe me to be ever your affectionate brother,

P. S.—I wrote to our dear mother on the 3d instant.

On Friday last, the 28th instant, I had an interview with Count Nesselrode, for the purpose of making the necessary arrangements previous to my departure from this country.

After the usual salutations, he introduced the subject of the commercial treaty, which is one of his favorite topics. The opposition made to it in the imperial council, and the difficulties which he there encountered and overcame, seem to have inspired him with a feeling of paternity towards this treaty. 211After some general conversation, relating chiefly to its favorable reception in the United States, I changed the subject, and remarked, that in our last interview I had entirely forgotten to mention that his explanation in regard to Baron Sacken’s note was entirely satisfactory to the President. It might be proper to observe, however, that Mr. Livingston differed materially from the baron in relation to some of the facts attending this unpleasant transaction, and it had, at first, been my intention to bring these points of difference specially under the notice of his excellency; but after reflection, I had determined that it was best upon the whole not to revive the subject. He immediately replied it was wholly unnecessary; he wished the whole subject to be buried in oblivion and there remain as if it had never existed. He expressed his pleasure in the strongest terms that the President was satisfied with the explanation, and then laughingly observed that Baron Sacken and Mr. Livingston were now both hors du combat: the one was no longer chargé nor the other Secretary of State.

I felt the less inclined to enter into any detail upon this subject, as Mr. Livingston admits that Baron Sacken did show him the offensive note at New York, and that he did not make any objections to its style, though he is convinced this took place after the note had been sent to Mr. Brent and not before, as the baron had informed Count Nesselrode. When I returned home, I discovered that the count, before our interview, must have had in his possession a copy of Mr. Livingston’s Despatch No. 11, giving his own explanation of the whole transaction. During my absence, the post-office had sent me the duplicate of that despatch which, like all the communications I have ever received through the same channel, had been evidently opened. How it got there, I know not, because it had been forwarded to this city by the ship Birmingham from New York via Charleston.

After this subject was disposed of, I told the count that as all our official intercourse had been of the most frank and friendly character, I felt it to be my duty to explain to him the reasons which would induce me to leave Russia sooner than I had at first intended. A short time before the departure of Mr. Clay with the treaty last winter, I had received information of my brother’s death and of the declining health of my mother and eldest sister. These circumstances had naturally produced a desire to return home, and had besides imposed upon me new and urgent duties towards my family. In a private letter which I addressed to the President by Mr. Clay, I suggested that these considerations might induce me to ask for permission to leave St. Petersburg sooner than I had intended; and upon his return in May last, I had received my letter of recall with the discretionary power of presenting it when I might think proper. The recent melancholy intelligence of my mother’s death had increased my anxiety, and made the reasons for my departure still more urgent.

He expressed his sorrow that I had been so unfortunate as to have lost my mother and my brother since my arrival in St. Petersburg, and his regret that these circumstances should have rendered my departure necessary.

212I told him I had not in the beginning intended to remain longer than two years,—I was no diplomat, and had never any desire to pursue this career. That I should now return to private life; but in whatever circumstances I might hereafter be placed, it would always afford me great pleasure to exert any humble influence I might possess in cementing the bonds of friendship which now so happily united the two countries.

He complimented me by saying, I had shown myself to be both an able and a successful diplomat, and he could assure me I had contributed much, since my arrival in this country, to promote kindly feelings between the two governments. He hoped I would carry with me agreeable souvenirs of my residence in St. Petersburg, and that my influence at home might be used in perpetuating the good understanding which now so happily existed.

I had taken with me a copy of my letter of recall and of the concluding paragraph of Despatch No. 9, and upon presenting them, I read the latter to the count, containing an assurance of the high consideration with which the personal character of the emperor had inspired the President, and of the wishes he formed for his happiness and the prosperity of his empire. To this I added that such an assurance, proceeding from the source it did, was in itself the strongest evidence of its own sincerity......

All things being arranged for his departure, Mr. Buchanan had his audience of leave of the emperor on the 5th of August, of which he gave a striking account to the Secretary of State in the following despatch written two days afterward:

Sir:—

On Monday last, the 5th instant, I had my audience of leave of the emperor, at the Palace of Peterhoff, twenty-six versts distant from this city. The conduct and conversation of his majesty throughout the interview were highly gratifying to myself; because they convinced me that I had conciliated his favorable opinion. This ought to be, next to the honest and independent discharge of his duty, the first object of a minister to Russia. Without it, he can never effectually serve his country.

Towards the conclusion of this interview, you will perceive that the emperor appeared to lay aside his official dignity and conversed frankly and with great feeling upon subjects which I could never have imagined he would introduce.

When I first entered he said: “What is the reason you are going to leave us? I am very sorry for it. You have given us great satisfaction whilst you have been amongst us.” After explaining to him the reason for my 213departure, he expressed his sympathy for me on account of the recent loss of my mother, and made some inquiries in relation to my family which I need not repeat. I then observed that, at the first, I had not intended to remain longer than two years. I was no diplomat, having never been engaged in that service before, and it was probable I should never again represent my country abroad. He said he liked me the better for it. He was no diplomat himself; his policy was always frank and open, and those who believed otherwise had greatly mistaken his character.

I then presented to him my letter of recall, and told him I had been instructed to assure him on this occasion of the continued desire felt by the President to foster the good understanding which now so happily subsisted between the two nations; and to express the high consideration with which his majesty’s personal character had inspired the President, and the wishes which he cherished for his happiness and the prosperity of his empire.

He said it was very gratifying to his feelings to receive such an assurance from General Jackson. He had shown himself to be a man both of integrity and firmness, and he valued his good opinion very highly. He felt a great respect for the people of the United States. They were a true and loyal people, and he should always endeavor to promote the most friendly relations with our country.

I then added, to that of General Jackson, my own humble testimonial of regard for his personal character, and the gratitude which I felt for his uniform kindness towards myself upon all occasions when I had the honor of meeting him. He replied that he felt much indebted to me for my good opinion, and trusted I should never have occasion to change it. He hoped I would remember him with kindness when I returned to my own country. He entertained a high personal regard for myself; and it was a source of peculiar pleasure to him, that it had fallen to my lot to conclude the commercial treaty between the two countries. He was glad this treaty had given satisfaction in the United States, and he believed it would serve to strengthen the attachment between two nations who ought always to be friends.

I observed it was one of the most agreeable occurrences of my life, to have been instrumental in concluding this treaty. I had no doubt it would be mutually beneficial to both countries. That wherever I was and whatever might be my lot, I should never cease to cherish the most ardent wishes for his happiness, and to use my humble influence in cementing the friendship between the two nations. This had been my constant object throughout the period of my mission. He said I had been eminently successful, and again assured me that my conduct had given him great satisfaction.

He then alluded, with considerable feeling, to the late debate in the House of Commons concerning Polish affairs; he observed that he was the representative of a great and powerful nation. This station imposed upon him many and arduous duties. He had acted in his public character, and upon views of public policy. But instead of considering the subject in this light, they seemed to have been instigated by a desire to abuse him personally. 214He could appeal to God and his own conscience for the purity and correctness of his conduct; and whilst that was the case, he should have peace within his own bosom, and would not regard the opinion of the world. This was a delicate subject. I replied that I had read the debate with considerable surprise. The distance at which my rank placed me from his majesty had enabled me to know but comparatively little of his personal character from my own observation; but judging from that knowledge, as well as from the information I had been able to collect, since my arrival in St. Petersburg, I entertained not a doubt he had been treated with great injustice. Indeed, it was impossible for any person who knew him, to believe that the representation made in that debate could be true.

And here permit me to declare that this is my honest conviction. I yield to no man in abhorrence for the different partitions of Poland, and in a desire to see the independence of that brave and gallant people re-established; but truth compels me to say that the cruelties of the Imperial Government towards them have been greatly exaggerated. It is even notorious here that in several instances the sons of Polish patriots who died fighting for national independence are receiving their education at the expense of the emperor, and are treated by him with distinguished kindness. The exaggerated impressions which have been spread throughout the world upon this subject arise, in a great degree, from the want of anything like a free press in Russia. From this cause, the representations of the injured party pass every where current, almost without contradiction. Still, it cannot be denied that whenever Russian officers are entrusted with power over Poles, it will most probably be abused. This arises from the ancient and malignant personal hatred existing between the two races.

The emperor afterwards observed that the English nation had, in his opinion, been acting very unwisely. They had got tired of a constitution under which they had risen to a high degree of greatness, and which had secured them many blessings, and he feared they were now about to prostrate their most valuable institutions. He then asked me what route I intended to take on my return home. I told him I should pass through Hamburg, Amsterdam, the Hague and Brussels to Paris, where I expected to spend a few weeks. From thence I should pass over to London, and finally embark from Liverpool for the United States. I said I had no particular desire to visit Paris; on the contrary, I should rather spend what time I had to spare in seeing a part of England, Scotland and Ireland; but it would be considered strange for an American to return from Europe without seeing Paris, the centre of so many attractions. This gave him occasion to speak of France. He said I was quite right in my intention to visit Paris. The French were a singular people. They were so fickle in their character, and had such a restless desire to disturb the peace of the world that they were always dangerous. They had tried every form of government and could not rest satisfied with any.

French emissaries were now endeavoring every where to excite disturbances and destroy the peace all over Europe.

215I observed we had always pursued a different course in America. We were no propagandists. Perfectly satisfied with our institutions, we left to every other nation the task of managing their own concerns in their own manner. This had been the uniform policy of our Government since its origin.

He replied that he knew the character of our nation well, and repeated they were a true and loyal people: He had the greatest confidence in them. His own policy was the same as ours. He was no propagandist himself. All he desired was peace. He never interfered with the concerns of other nations when it could possibly be avoided. He desired peace above all things for Russia. But he said it seemed as if there were at present an evil spirit abroad throughout the world. He appeared to be particularly the object of its malevolence. (Evidently alluding to the Polish conspiracy.) He was in the hands of the Almighty, and would endeavor to do his duty fearlessly and honestly in the station where Providence had placed him, and in humble submission would leave the event to His will. Here he was evidently affected.

He then bade me adieu, and embraced and saluted me according to the Russian custom, a ceremony for which I was wholly unprepared, and which I could not have anticipated. Whilst we were taking leave, he told me to tell General Jackson to send him another minister exactly like myself. He wished for no better.

Upon leaving his presence I was sensibly impressed with the vanity of human greatness. The circumstances brought forcibly to memory the closing scene of the life of the Emperor Alexander. Throughout his last illness he refused to take medicine, and thus suffered his disease, which was not at the first considered dangerous, to become mortal. When Sir James Wylie, his physician, told him that unless he would submit to medical treatment his disease must prove fatal, the Emperor Alexander regarded him earnestly, and exclaimed in the most solemn manner, “and why should I desire to live?” He continued to reject all remedies, and his death was the consequence. On the truth of this anecdote you may rely. There was no foundation for the report that he had been poisoned.

At the first, I had determined to suppress such parts of this conversation as were evidently confidential, together with the kind things which the emperor said to me personally; but I afterwards concluded that it was my duty under my instructions to report the whole. This is done, under a full conviction that it will never meet the public eye.

I had on the same day my audience of leave of the empress, who was very gracious, but what passed upon this occasion is not properly the subject for a despatch.

I took leave of Count Nesselrode this morning, and presented Mr. Clay as chargé-d’affaires. Time presses, and I shall leave him in his first despatch to give you a particular account of this interview. It was entirely satisfactory.

Thus has my mission terminated; and I cannot be mistaken when I say that these people now evince a much better feeling both towards our Government 216and the head of it than they did on my arrival. I have taken great pains, upon all proper occasions, to make the character and conduct of General Jackson known. Nothing more was necessary to make the man who enjoys the highest rank in our country stand also the first in their esteem.

I have not seen or heard anything of Baron Sacken since his arrival in this city.

Within the past few days it has been known here that the emperor had refused to receive Sir Stratford Canning as ambassador from England. As his reasons were altogether personal, this refusal can produce no serious difficulty between the two nations. The Russians say that Sir Stratford, when here before, evinced a captious and jealous disposition, which rendered him very disagreeable.

I expect to reach the United States about the last of November or beginning of December.

DEPARTURE FROM ST. PETERSBURG—JOURNEY TO PARIS—PRINCESS LIEVEN—POZZO DI BORGO—DUC DE BROGLIE—GENERAL LAFAYETTE—LOUIS PHILIPPE—ARRIVAL IN LONDON—DINNER AT PRINCE LIEVEN’S AND LORD PALMERSTON’S—PRINCE TALLEYRAND.

Mr. Buchanan commenced his homeward journey on the 8th of August (1833). Omitting what merely relates to places and things now well known to all travelers, I select the following passages from his diary:

I left St. Petersburg. Mr. Bligh, Mr. Gevers and Mr. Clay accompanied me as far as Cronstadt. At 6 o’clock in the afternoon we passed the guard ship and arrived at Travemunde, on Tuesday, the 13th, between 12 and 1 o’clock in the day, after a rough and stormy passage. The boat (Alexandra) has not sufficient steam power for her tonnage, having only 140 horse-power for more than 700 tons, and the consequence is that she can make but little way against a head wind. The price of the passage is 250 roubles ($50), the consequence of an indiscreet monopoly which has been granted by the emperor.

We had on board the Princess Lieven and her two youngest sons, the Princes George and Arthur, called after the late king^[38] and the Duke of Wellington—the one about thirteen, the other nine—fine boys. Count Matuscervie was also on board, bound for Aberdeenshire on a hunting expedition. He is excessively fond of horse-racing, hunting and all field sports, and seems to take much greater delight in talking of these subjects, than those of a serious nature. The princess has in a great degree lost that beauty which captivated the king and the Duke of W. Her nose is now sharp and her face somewhat red; but her manners and conversation are very fine. I consider her superior to Matuscervie as a diplomatist.^[39] I endeavored to cultivate 218her good graces, not by assiduous attentions, which are often annoying, but by kind and respectful conduct towards her whenever the opportunity occurred unsought. I succeeded. She is a woman and possesses all the superstitious feelings in regard to omens which distinguish the Russians. The count and myself made a bet on the length of the voyage, and drank the wine before its termination. This gave her much uneasiness, and the wind became more violent immediately after. The count wrote a complimentary certificate in the captain’s [log] book, and it was signed before the close of the voyage. Immediately after we had quite a storm, which continued the whole night. I should have been alarmed myself, but thanks to the Yankee captain with whom I crossed the Atlantic, who would carry sail in a hurricane. Captain Dietz, of the boat, a round-faced and pleasant Dutchman, and a naturalized citizen of the United States, attributed our bad voyage entirely to the circumstance of having a parson aboard (The Rev. Mr. Kneill). He swore he could show all his [log] books and prove that, since he commanded a vessel, he had never made a single prosperous voyage with a clergyman on board. This was added to the stock of the princess’s superstition, and I found her uneasy at the idea of having him on board, on their passage from Hamburg to London. I told her I considered it almost a moral phenomenon to see such a woman believing in these presages. She said she had not un esprit fort. She could not help it. She said Lady Holland was as bad as herself in this respect. It was she [Lady Holland] who had first informed her that it was bad luck to set out on a journey on Friday. The princess did not believe it; but she had once tried it; her carriage was broken, and she injured, so as not to be entirely recovered for a year.

Lord Wellington, she said, never thought himself wrong. He was always right, in his opinion. He had committed three great blunders whilst he was minister.

The first was in sending Prince Polignac to govern France. The duke had told her that this prince was the greatest man in France. Politeness alone had prevented her from laughing in his face. He was mediocre parmi les mediocres; besides, he was obstinate to the very last degree. The second was on the Catholic emancipation question; and the third in refusing all reform after having himself opened the door for it.

Lord Lowther had called to see her in Hamburg, and informed her that there would have been, a few days ago, a new ministry in England, but for the timidity of Sir Robert Peel. I told her I thought this was prudence in Sir Robert. The Tories could not now govern England. She concurred in opinion with me; said the duke was now near seventy, and could not afford to wait, but that was not the case with Sir Robert. We talked of the Polish question, etc., etc...... Met Mr. Wheaton, his wife and daughter in Hamburg.^[40]

We left Cologne and arrived in Aix-la-Chapelle, a distance of nine and a quarter German miles, through Bergheim and Juliers. The latter strongly fortified.

The king of Prussia seems to be determined to strengthen himself in this country. Judging from what I have observed myself and heard from others, he cannot rely upon the affections of the people. Indeed, they talk very freely. They all refer to the days of Napoleon; and compare their situation then with what it is at present. The old maitre d’hotel at Bergheim, who has kept a public house for fifty years, and who seems to be a sensible and honest-hearted old man, told me that the taxes were not half so heavy under Napoleon as they were at present. That he was the greatest man there had ever been in the world, and they loved the French much better than the Prussians. Other travelers, who understand German, have told me that at the public tables they talk of a revolution as certain; without pretending to conjecture when it will take place.

But the king of Prussia is a wise man. He has been taught in the school of misfortune, and has been greatly benefited by the lessons of that stern mistress. There is great freedom of speech allowed throughout the Prussian dominions, and in those east of the Rhine the king is popular, notwithstanding the violation of his promise to give them a constitution. This arises from a general conviction of his wisdom and justice, and particularly from the equal conduct he has pursued towards all classes of his subjects. The people are pleased with him, because his conduct towards the nobles has given them no cause of jealousy. He is a democratic despot, and this is perhaps the true policy of all despots.

In the Rhenish provinces, it is difficult for the people to rebel, in the midst of strong and almost impregnable fortifications and of troops faithful and well disciplined.

Arrived in Paris, and went to lodgings provided for me by Mr. Harris,^[41] in the Rue de Paix.

I walked to the Place Vendome, and saw the triumphal column. The statue of Napoleon was again placed upon its summit during the anniversary of what are called here the glorious days of the revolution of July (1830). I also visited the garden of the Tuileries, the Champs Elysées, and the Place of Louis XVI, between the two. Here this unfortunate monarch was executed.

A column is to be erected in the centre, exactly resembling Cleopatra’s Needle. There is a model of it now standing. Dined with Mr. Harris—a man sufficiently civil and ceremonious, but a mannerist...... He has been so long in Europe as to have lost much of his American feelings, if he 220ever possessed them in a strong degree. Not unskilful as a diplomatist. He is remembered kindly in Russia, whilst such men as Bayard and Pinkney are forgotten. He seems to have done his duty in relation to the confirmation of the French treaty by the chambers.

Called on the Duke of Treviso (Mortier) and General Lafayette; found them both in the country; took a drive with Mr. Harris into the Bois de Boulogne. He is exceedingly anxious to be appointed minister to Russia. I also visited Notre Dame.

Visited the Louvre. Whilst there, met very unexpectedly Walter Patterson, Esq., of the State of New York, and Mr. Stevenson and Mr. Burns, of the same State.

Afterwards called with Mr. Harris on Count Pozzo di Borgo;^[42] had an interesting conversation with him. He thinks the French selfish, that their courage proceeds from vanity, and that they are wholly unfit for the enjoyment of constitutional liberty. He says they will fight well, when seen, but are incapable of sustaining disasters. He has done everything he could to preserve peace; but if war must come, he thinks the French mistaken as to its result. If one were to judge merely from the striking superiority of the Russian over the French troops in appearance, this conclusion would seem very natural.

So unwell that I could not go out. Mr. Harris made a dinner party of Americans for me on Saturday, which, much to my regret, I could not attend. General Lafayette called and sat nearly an hour with me before he went to this dinner; but I was in great pain the whole time.

Judging from what I have heard from the General, Major Poussin and others, I have no doubt the Republican party are making rapid advances in 221France. This is not confined to the lower orders, but extends to the highest circles. From all I can observe and learn, they are wholly unprepared for republican institutions. They want political virtue as much as any people. They are very selfish, destitute in a great degree of religion, and are always discontented with the present because they hope something from change. Political virtue, with the exception of Lafayette and a few others, don’t exist among them.

The policy of the latter [Lafayette] is that France shall now school herself preparatory to republican institutions, for fifteen or twenty years. But I think he is afraid the change will take place sooner. He has lost much of his popularity in France, because they believe him to be an imbecile, and because he will not lead the Republican party to immediate action. He has lost all confidence in Louis Philippe, who, in my opinion, is as desirous of being a Legitimate as the Emperor Alexander.

In case of general republican commotions in France, a continental war becomes inevitable. The three great powers of Europe are preparing for it, and if one were to judge from the appearance of the Russian and Prussian soldiers compared with the French, he would be tempted to doubt the result. There is an energy in liberty, however, and there will probably be such an aid to its cause among the oppressed of Germany, Poland and other nations, that we may cherish the hope that France will not be overrun. I do not consider the French either safe or good apostles of liberty. I sincerely hope I am mistaken. Everything here is now Bonaparte; and at present they appear to live upon the memory of their greatness under him.

I ought always to remember with gratitude the kindness of Mr. Emlen, Doctor Fisher and Mr. Patterson^[43] during my three days’ sickness. Hope to be out to-morrow again.

Thank God! a fine day. Visited the Duc de Broglie, in company with Mr. Harris. Conversation concerning the omission of the French Chamber to ratify the treaty.

I told him that, however the government here might be able to satisfy that at Washington, and understand each other on the subject, their explanations could not reach the people of the United States. I had no doubt the transaction would give rise to much unpleasant feeling among our people, and might lead to an unhappy state of feeling between the two countries. That I should not be astonished if this were to manifest itself on the meeting of Congress. He said that he was very sorry, Mr. Harris could appreciate his exertions; he was happy to say that the feeling in favor of the treaty was growing; the advantages of the commerce were becoming more manifest, and he had no doubt that one of the first acts which the Chamber would perform after its meeting, would be to ratify it. He hoped it would come so soon that Congress would receive the news before there was any expression of 222feeling. [He] Criminated Mr. Dupin in relation to it—said he only called for the papers because he knew that all the reports of previous commissions had been against the treaty. He said, although not a member of the administration which made it, he approved it and would now make such a treaty.^[44]

I dined to-day with Count Pozzo di Borgo. Before dinner he took Mr. Harris and myself into a room apart from the rest of the company, and told me he wished to communicate to me, so that I might inform the President, on my return, what was the true condition of Europe at the present moment. He said there did not exist at the present any immediate apprehension of war; though from the state of things there was no telling at what time war might take place.

Everything was unsettled in France; they were a turbulent and restless people, and busily employed with their propaganda. They were wholly unfit for liberal institutions; and, in fact, these were not what they wanted. They wished again for the glory of the times of Bonaparte. He could himself, in a month, raise an insurrection in France; but what the allied powers wanted was peace, and peace they would maintain so long as they could consistently with propriety. That this they did not wish from fear of the result. Far from it. They, to wit, Russia, Prussia and Austria, were indissolubly united, and war with one would be war with all.

Those three powers, with the German Confederation, could, in three months, bring an army of 600,000 men into the field, 500,000 infantry and 100,000 cavalry, and have an army of reserve of the same number. The French journals were continually attacking them without cause, for interfering with foreign states, but I understood him to say that Austria would interfere in Piedmont, and if the French should attempt to prevent it, the allies would make common cause against them. They disliked and distrusted France very much; England not so much. If the latter would act a prudent and proper part, she might have great influence on the affairs of Europe; but the English ministry were fools. They were encouraging France, and yet it was almost certain they would not fire a gun in defence of the latter. England depended upon her commerce, and she could not afford to lose that of the whole continent of Europe, which she would do in the event of war. She had acted very foolishly in giving Belgium to France.

What he wished me especially to tell the President was that he hoped the United States in the event of a war would cause their neutrality to be respected, and would not suffer the existence of illegal blockades. That in the event of war, England would have every interest to cripple American commerce; for, in that event, the commerce of the world would fall into the hands of Americans. That the English must even use their vessels to carry articles essentially necessary to them from the north of Europe.

223I promised I would communicate all he had said to the President, and observed that when we were comparatively feeble, we had gone to war for the purpose of maintaining our neutral rights upon the ocean; and that at this time of day, when we were much more powerful, neither the President nor people of the United States would suffer them to be violated with impunity. Our policy was peaceful; we never interfered with the political concerns of other nations. The strictest neutrality we should observe both from principle and from policy. This had been the course of our Government ever since the celebrated proclamation of neutrality of General Washington, which I explained to him. I was not now afraid that England would, as she had done before, attempt to violate the neutral rights of a nation which in six months could put to sea fifty ships of the line and heavy frigates. He expressed some admiration and astonishment at this statement, which was confirmed by Mr. Harris, and observed he could not believe that they would.

The conversation then turned upon the French treaty. He said he had been speaking several times to Broglie, as he called him, upon the subject. He had done what he could for us. Broglie was well disposed, and he thought with the assistance of Lafayette and his friends, it would be ratified very early in the next session. I told him I had understood that Mr. Dupin, the President of the Chamber, was rather opposed to us. He said that Dupin was an unprincipled man, I think he said a rascal, very selfish, and fond of money. He was now receiving a pension of 200 or 300 pounds. I did not understand exactly from whom.

After we went to table, we had much conversation in nearly the same strain. He told me he wished I could be present at two or three sittings of the Chamber. They were like cats, all in a passion, and all making a noise, and afterwards laughing; wholly unfit for liberty. They wanted such a man as Bonaparte and glory again, not liberty.

Before we went to table I asked him what he thought of Louis Philippe, and whether the allied sovereigns had confidence in his character. He answered equivocally. Said Louis Philippe might be well disposed; but he might be controlled by the factions, and made to do what he did not approve. His government wanted strength.

At table, in speaking of the emperor [Nicholas], I said I had taken occasion, since my arrival in France, to speak of the personal character of the emperor to some persons, as I thought it deserved. He replied as if I had mentioned the name of Lafayette, which I did not, and asked what Lafayette had thought of that. I said that General Lafayette was aware of the good personal character of the emperor, and that of the empress, and the happy influence of their example on the Russian nobility, and had freely admitted it. He said that the general had lost his influence with Louis Philippe, and in a great degree in France. I observed that whatever opinion others might express concerning him, I considered it the duty of every American to speak with gratitude of him. Mr. Harris here shook his head at me, but I continued to talk about him, and the donation we had made him. The count said it 224was all spent, and I replied I was very sorry for it. Various subjects were talked over, and the count took leave of me in the kindest and most affectionate manner. He was glad to have an opportunity of communicating this information to a gentleman of my character, who had been sent on a special mission to Russia, and acquitted himself in such a manner as I had done. General Jackson might probably have never heard of him; but he had often [heard] of the general, and respected his character very highly. I told him his name was known throughout the political world. General Jackson would be proud of his good opinion, which I should not fail to communicate.

I forgot to mention that, at the proper place, I introduced the subject of the treaty concerning maritime rights, and said one object of my mission was to make a treaty which should assert these rights as between the two nations. He replied that he presumed it had been explained to me that the reason why Russia did not accede to this treaty at the present moment was the delicate relations between them and England. Such a treaty at this time would set England in a flame. Russia was but a second-rate naval power. She agreed, however, entirely with the principles concerning maritime rights maintained by us, and at the proper time would assert them in the same manner as if she had entered into the treaty. In the course of the conversation, he observed that the influence of Russia was firmly established in Constantinople. Yes, I observed, she had been acting whilst the other powers were talking. I asked the true character of the sultan, and he spoke of him as rather a wavering and weak man, etc.

Mr. Buchanan, after visiting the interesting old city of Rouen, embarked at Havre for Southampton, and arrived at Thompson’s Hotel in Cavendish Square, London, on the 18th of September. A dinner at Prince Lieven’s and another at Lord Palmerston’s are the only things worthy of note that I find in his journal kept during this visit.

Dined at Prince Lieven’s.

The company were the Prince and Princess, Prince Talleyrand and the Duchess de Dino^[45], Prince Esterhazy, Baron Wessenberg, Lord Palmerston, Baron Bülow, Mr. Dedal, Mr. Vail, the Earl and Countess of Sefton, Mr. Lomonosoff and myself—fourteen. The whole London conference there. A dinner given to Prince Talleyrand, who left London the next day for Paris.

They were all very civil and kind to me, particularly Princess Lieven, Lord Palmerston and Prince Esterhazy. After dinner, I was introduced to Prince Talleyrand by Lord Palmerston, at the solicitation of the latter. He at once 225asked me, in French, if I could speak French. I told him not well, but I could understand it. He then asked some questions about America, and inquired particularly for the family of General Hamilton, and about the descendants of General Schuyler. He said that when he was minister for Foreign Affairs, Colonel Burr came to Paris and sent his card to him. He returned the card, with a message that he had the portrait of General Hamilton hanging up in his parlor.

They told me, before I made his acquaintance, that though eighty-three, by his own acknowledgment, his mind was as active as ever. This I doubt. He has the appearance of a very old man, though not very thin, like the French. At dinner he spoke very little, though he ate with a good appetite. They say he eats but one meal a day. After dinner he was a little more sprightly. He accepted an invitation to dine again with the Prince and Princess on the 8th December, at half-past seven, with pleasantry. Baron Bülow told me the next day that his ability and skill in the conference were wonderful. He would lie down and say nothing whilst all the rest were talking, but when they got tired and into confusion, he would come out with great power, and restore all things to their proper order.

Lord Palmerston did not arrive at the dinner till after we had sat down, about eight o’clock. They say he is never punctual. He is an agreeable and open-hearted man to appearance. I had much conversation with him on three occasions, particularly after his own dinner, and he must be a great hypocrite if not in favor of promoting the most friendly relations between England and the United States. Prince Esterhazy on this day expressed his admiration of the President, and his warm friendship towards the American people, and said this was the feeling of Prince Metternich. He had recommended to the emperor to open diplomatic relations with us, which the latter had acceded to, and a minister would soon be sent. He spoke of his own country, Hungary, with great devotion, and said he never would have been a diplomat but for the friendship of the late king (George IV.). He pressed me several times to give Americans letters of introduction to him.

Dined at Lord Palmerston’s.

Lord Palmerston’s dinner consisted of his Lordship, Princes Esterhazy and Lieven, Barons Bülow, Wessenberg and Ompteda, Mr. Backhouse, Mr. Vail, Mr. Bacourt, Sir George Shea, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Sullivan, Jr. and myself.

I sat next Baron Bülow at table. He talked freely of the conduct of the King of Holland. Blamed his obstinacy and perverseness. Said he might yet bring ruin on his own head. The Dutch were an excellent people. He had deceived them, induced them to believe that all he wanted was the separation of Holland from Belgium upon fair terms, when he was only keeping the question open in the hope that he might get Belgium under his dominion again, which the Dutch did not wish. When they discovered they had been deceived, he did not know what might be the consequence. He said he could not anticipate when the conference would end. The King of Holland 226could have got better terms formerly than it was possible for him now. He told me significantly that the King of Prussia would not meet the emperors of Russia and Austria in conference. The whole conversation coming from the Prussian minister to the conference astonished me.

Mr. Bates^[46] told me the English were fifty years behind the Americans in commercial enterprise and shipbuilding. He was examined before a committee of the House of Commons. When questioned upon this subject, he said he had been kindly received and treated in England, and did not like to answer the question and have his answers published. They then told him to give his opinion, and it should not be taken down.

He told them the reason of the superiority was in the character of masters and sailors. They were educated, had a sense of character and responsibility, entirely different from the same classes in England. Masters were respectable men, and sailors were now shipped from a reading-room in Boston.

He expressed his opinion to me that the Americans would, before long, carry on the chief trade between England and China. Everything favored them. The destruction of the East India Company’s charter and of the West India merchants, etc.

[He speaks of] The astonishment of the shipbuilder, when he gave the dimensions of a vessel to him, and his astonishment afterwards at being shown the American vessel which was his model, etc.

MR. BUCHANAN RETURNS HOME—GREETING FROM GENERAL JACKSON—ELECTED TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES—STATE OF PARTIES—THE GREAT WHIG LEADERS IN THE SENATE—PERIL OF A WAR WITH FRANCE.

Mr. Buchanan was greeted on his arrival at his home in Lancaster by the following letter from General Jackson:

My Dear Sir:—

I have received your note by Mr. John Van Buren, and am delighted to hear that you have reached your country in good health, after so long an absence in her service. I anticipate much pleasure from the personal interview, which you have promised me I shall have in the course of this week, but do not desire to hasten you more than your convenience, or the wishes of your friends will permit. I leave until then all else that I would say, except my congratulation on your safe arrival, which I beg you to accept with my best wishes for your health and happiness.

The winter of 1833–34 appears to have been passed in private occupations which have left no traces. But in the latter part of the summer of 1834, Mr. Buchanan was appointed one of the commissioners on the part of the State of Pennsylvania, to arrange with commissioners of the State of New Jersey, concerning the use of the waters of the Delaware. It was not entirely convenient for him to accept this appointment; but as it was to be a public service without any pecuniary compensation, he felt that he had no alternative. How long he was occupied about it, I have not discovered. In the following December, the election of a Senator of the United States, to 228succeed Mr. Wilkins, who had been appointed minister to Russia, was to be made by the Legislature of Pennsylvania. Mr. Buchanan was chosen on the 6th of December (1834), upon the fourth balloting; his principal competitors being Joel B. Sutherland, James Clarke, and Amos Ellmaker. He was of course elected by the Democratic members of the Legislature, and as a supporter of the administration of President Jackson.^[47]

The correspondence which took place between him and those who elected him, is of interest now, chiefly because it discloses that he held to what has been called the doctrine of instruction; that is to say, the right of a State Legislature to direct the vote of a Senator of the State in Congress, and the duty of the Senator to obey the direction.

Dear Sir:—

Ere this reaches you, doubtless you will have been notified of your election to the Senate of the United States, by the Legislative body of this State to which we have the honor to belong. And it is with unfeigned gratification that we individually can claim a participation in the confidence which has on this occasion been reposed in your talents and integrity. Nor is that gratification by any means lessened, from the consideration that you are the personal as well as the political friend of both our State and National Executives, who have done so much within their respective spheres to exalt the character and promote the interests of our State and Nation. And above all, who, in their official relations, so nobly stood forth in the rescue of our common country from the grasp of a corrupt moneyed monopoly, as reckless as it was aristocratical, and as merciless as it was powerful. And it is with no less pride than pleasure that we shall look to you, in your new and high relations, as the champion of the measures projected by our venerable President, Andrew Jackson, and seconded by our worthy Executive, George Wolf.

Respectfully your friends and obedient servants,

The following communication, in reply, was laid before the members, at a meeting held in the Capitol on the 7th instant, by Col. Jacob Kern, Speaker of the Senate:

Gentlemen:—

I want language to express my feelings on the perusal of your kind letter, which was delivered to me at the moment I was about to leave Harrisburg. Elevated by your free and unsolicited suffrages to the only public station I desire to occupy, it shall be my constant endeavor to justify, by my conduct, the generous confidence which you have thus reposed. The interest and the honor of Pennsylvania, so far as you have committed them to my hands, shall never be wilfully abandoned or betrayed.

Although you have not asked me for any pledge or promise relating to my course in the Senate, yet I am sensible that many of you desire I should express my opinion publicly in regard to the right of legislative instruction. I shall do so with the utmost frankness. On this question I have not, and never have had, any serious difficulties. The right results from the very nature of our institutions. The will of the people, when fully and fairly expressed, ought to be obeyed by all their political agents. This is the very nature and essence of a representative democracy.

Without entering into an argument upon the general question, which would be altogether misplaced upon the present occasion, it may not be improper to observe that the principle applies with redoubled force to Senators in Congress. They represent the sovereign States, who are the parties to that constitutional compact which called the federal union into existence. In the Senate, these States are represented as distinct communities, each entitled to the same number of votes, without regard to their population. In that body they are all equal, as they were before the adoption of the federal constitution. Here, emphatically, if any where, the voice of the States ought to be heard, and ought to be obeyed. Shall it then be said that a Senator possesses the constitutional right to violate the express instructions of the sovereign State which he represents, and wield the power and the vote which have been conferred upon him for the benefit of his constituents in a manner which they have solemnly declared to be ruinous to their dearest interests, or dangerous to their liberties! The bare statement of the proposition carries conviction to my mind. All, or nearly all the State Legislatures, have long been in the practice of instructing their Senators, and this affords the strongest evidence of the principle upon which the custom is founded.

It has been objected, that the right of instruction may destroy the tenure of the Senatorial office, and render it subject to all the political fluctuations in the several States. But the Senator is only bound to obey: he is not called upon to resign. And although there may be circumstances in which a man of honor might feel himself constrained to retire from the public service rather than give the vote of his State against his own convictions, yet these cases must, from their nature, be of rare occurrence.

230Besides, this objection implies an entire want of confidence in the State legislatures. It supposes that they may become the instruments of faction for the purpose of harassing Senators, and compelling them to resign. In fact, it results in the principle that the people are incapable of managing their own concerns, and are, therefore, under the necessity of conferring an irresponsible political power upon one of their own number, to save them from themselves. From the nature of our institutions, we must repose such a degree of confidence in the State legislatures as to presume that they will not abuse the power with which they have been intrusted.

If it should ever clearly appear, in any case, that the immediate representatives of the people have not obeyed their will in voting instructions, this might present an exception to the general rule. Such an occurrence, however, though possible, is highly improbable. It is not to be presumed that State legislatures will exercise this important power, unless upon grave and solemn occasions, after mature deliberation and a thorough knowledge of the public will.

I have thus expressed my opinion freely upon this important question, though I am well aware it differs from that of some of the ablest and best men of our country.^[48]

In relation to the course which I intend to pursue in the Senate, I shall say but little. My conduct must speak for itself. I feel sensible that in point of ability I shall disappoint the partial expectations of my friends. To become distinguished in that body, the ablest in the world in proportion to its numbers, requires a stretch of intellect and a range of political knowledge and experience, which I do not pretend to possess. Whilst, therefore, I cannot become “the champion of the measures projected by our venerable President,” I shall, both from principle and inclination, give them an honest and consistent support.

Before concluding this letter, permit me to state my entire concurrence in the sentiments you have expressed concerning “our worthy executive, George Wolf.” In the darkest hour of pressure and of panic during the last winter, when the internal improvements of the State were, to all appearance, about to be arrested, he stood unmoved, and met the storm in a manner which proved him to be the able, faithful, and fearless representative of Pennsylvania Democracy. His message contributed much to dispel the gloom which, for a 231time, seemed to have settled on our country. It was the bright dawn of that glorious day of prosperity which we have since enjoyed.

With sentiments of the most profound gratitude and respect, I remain

As I am now to trace a long senatorial career, which began at a period when the Senate of the United States contained men of the very highest ability and renown, it is proper to give a brief account of the state of parties and the questions of the time, and to fix Mr. Buchanan’s position among the statesmen whom he had to meet. When he took his seat in the Senate, on the 15th of December, 1834, General Jackson was in his second term of office, which began on the 4th of March, 1833. He had received a very large majority of the electoral votes—seventy-four more than were necessary to a choice. Mr. Van Buren had become Vice-President by a majority of electoral votes less than General Jackson’s, by the number of thirty. He was, of course, in the chair of the Senate. In Congress and throughout the country, the supporters of the administration had become known as the Democratic party, the old term of “Republicans,” and the more recent one of “Jackson men,” being generally dropped.^[49] The opposition had become classified and consolidated under the name of the Whig party, a term substituted for that of “National Republicans.” Their leader and candidate in the presidential election of 1832 was Mr. Clay.^[50] There was a third party, known as the “Anti-Masons,” who gave the seven electoral votes of Vermont to Mr. Wirt, as their candidate for the Presidency, and to Amos Ellmaker of Pennsylvania as their candidate for the Vice-Presidency.

Notwithstanding General Jackson’s great popularity and influence throughout the country, a large majority of the Senate were opposed to his administration and his measures. This opposition became concentrated and intensified by the President’s removal of the public deposits from the Bank of the United States, into certain selected State banks. A resolution, strongly 232condemning this act, had been carried in the Senate, by twenty-eight yeas against eighteen nays, on the 28th of March, 1834, nine months before Mr. Buchanan entered the Senate. This vote may therefore be regarded as a general index of the relative strength of parties in that body when Mr. Buchanan became a member of it. How this great opposition majority became so changed three years afterward, that the friends of General Jackson were able to expunge this resolution from the records of the Senate, will appear hereafter. The leading Senators of the opposition at the commencement of the session, in December, 1834, and distinctly classified as Whigs, were Mr. Clay, Mr. Webster, Mr. Clayton of Delaware, Mr. Ewing of Ohio, and Mr. Frelinghuysen and Mr. Southard of New Jersey.

The most important Democratic or administration Senators were, Messrs. Wright of New York, Benton of Missouri, and Mr. King of Alabama. Calhoun stood apart from both the political parties. He had been chosen Vice-President in 1828 by the same party which then elected General Jackson for the first time, and he then had the same electoral votes, with the exception of seven of the votes of Georgia. He was consequently in the Chair of the Senate in 1830, when the great debate took place between Mr. Webster and Colonel Hayne on the subject of nullification. In 1833, when the South Carolina doctrine of nullification culminated in a threatened resistance to collection of the Federal revenue within her borders, and made it necessary for General Jackson to issue his celebrated proclamation, Mr. Calhoun was elected as a senator in Congress from South Carolina, and he determined to resign the Vice-Presidency. In December, 1832, he took his seat in the Senate. The breach between him and the President, which was caused by the attitude of the latter towards the “Nullifiers,” was understood to be widened by the probability that Mr. Van Buren would be the Democratic candidate for the Presidency, to succeed General Jackson in 1837, and by the well-known wish of the latter that Mr. Van Buren should become his successor. The breach between Mr. Calhoun and the President became still farther widened, when the State of South Carolina adopted her famous ordinance for preventing the collection of the Federal revenue within her limits. From General Jackson’s known firmness of character 233and tendency to severe measures, Mr. Calhoun found himself in some personal danger. Then followed Mr. Clay’s interposition, by means of his compromise tariff, which was designed to ward off an actual collision between the federal executive and the nullifying leaders of South Carolina. Mr. Calhoun was thus saved from personal humiliation, and perhaps from some personal peril. But no real reconciliation took place between him and General Jackson, and he remained in an isolated position in the Senate, a great and powerful debater, vindicating with singular ability, when a proper occasion offered, his peculiar views of the nature of the Constitution, always discharging his duties as a senator with entire purity, but never acting upon any measure as a member of either of the political parties into which the Senate was divided.

Taking the entire composition of the Senate at that period, with the opposing forces of the Democratic and the Whig parties, and with Mr. Calhoun’s intermediate position, there has never been a period in the history of that body, when there was more real power of debate displayed, or when public measures were more thoroughly considered. If Mr. Clay, Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Webster towered above the other senators, there were not wanting men who may be said to have approached them in ability; and if Mr. Clay and Mr. Webster, on the Whig side, sometimes appeared to give to the opposition a preponderating intellectual force, it was not always a supremacy that could be said to be undisputed by their Democratic opponents, although they did for a long time control the action of the Senate. The country looked on upon these great senatorial contests with predilections which varied, of course, with the political feelings and associations of men; but the President, his measures and his policy, notwithstanding the power of the Senatorial opposition, continued to grow in the popular favor, and to receive constant proofs of the popular support. To some of the principal questions of the time I now turn. The first in which Mr. Buchanan took part, soon after he entered the Senate, related to the conduct of France.

In 1831 a convention was concluded between the United States and the government of King Louis Philippe, by which 234the latter bound itself to pay to the United States twenty-five millions of francs, for the liquidation of certain claims of American citizens against France, and to be distributed to the claimants by the American Government, as it should determine. The Government of the United States, on its part, engaged to pay to the French government one million five hundred thousand francs, to liquidate the claims, urged by the French government for its citizens, on the United States, and to be distributed by the French government, as it should determine. Each party bound itself to pay its stipulated sum in six annual instalments: those payable by the United States to be deducted from the larger sums payable by France. The first French instalment, $4,166,666.66, became due at the expiration of one year next following the exchange of ratifications. The exchange of ratifications took place February 2d, 1832, and consequently the first French instalment became due on the 3d of February, 1833. A bill of exchange was drawn by the Secretary of the Treasury on the French Minister of Finance, for the amount of the instalment, and sold to the Bank of the United States. Payment was refused at the French Treasury when the bill was presented, for the reason that the Legislative Chambers had made no appropriation to meet the instalment. We have seen that when Mr. Buchanan was in Paris, in the summer of 1833 he held conversations on this matter with the Duc de Broglie and Count Pozzo di Borgo; from which it appears that moderate and rational persons in France then believed that the Chambers would at the next session make the necessary appropriation. In December, 1833, President Jackson, in his annual message to Congress, adverted to this subject, and said that he had despatched an envoy to the French government to attend to it, and that he had received from that government assurances that at the next meeting of the Chambers it would be brought forward and satisfactorily disposed of. He added that if he should be disappointed in this hope, the subject would be again brought before Congress, “in such manner as the occasion might require.” The opposition in France regarded this as a menace. The subject was brought before the Chambers several times, but in April, 1834, the appropriation 235necessary to carry the treaty into effect was refused. The king’s government then sent a national vessel to this country, bearing the king’s assurance that the Chambers should be called together, after the election of new members, as soon as the charter would permit, and that the influence of the executive should be exerted to procure the necessary appropriation, in time to be communicated to the President before the assembling of Congress in December, 1834. The Chambers met on the 31st of July, but this matter was not acted upon, and they were prorogued to the 29th of December. New assurances were given by the French government that at the ensuing session the appropriation should be pressed. In his annual message of December, 1834, the President made severe comments on the course of all branches of the French government, and recommended a law authorizing reprisals on French property, in case the appropriation should not be made at the ensuing session of the Chambers. This was the attitude of the matter when Mr. Buchanan entered the Senate.^[51]

The Senate’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, at the head of which was Mr. Clay, had made a report against the adoption of the President’s recommendation. On the 14th of January, (1835) on a resolution introduced by Mr. Cuthbert of Georgia, Mr. Buchanan took occasion to say:

France had, before the close of the last session of Congress, declared that it was the unanimous determination of the king’s government to appear before the new legislature with its treaty and its bill in hand, and that its intention was to do all that the charter allowed to hasten, as much as possible, the period of the new presentation of the rejected law. The President rested satisfied with this assurance, and, on the faith of it, did not present the subject to Congress. How has France redeemed this pledge? Has that government hastened, as much as possible, the presentation of the rejected law? At the first meeting of the new legislature the law was not presented; and in the face of this engagement, the Chambers were prorogued, not to meet in the autumn, but on the 29th of December, the very latest day which custom had sanctioned. If this assurance had any meaning at all, it was that the Chambers should be convened at least in sufficient time to communicate to the President information that they had assembled, before the meeting of Congress. The President, at the date of the message, was not aware that the Chambers would assemble on the first of the month. No such information had been communicated to him. It now appears that they did assemble on that day. And the only reason that he should vote for the resolution was, that he was willing to wait until the result of their deliberations could be known.

What effect this circumstance might have had on the President’s mind, had he known of its existence, he was not prepared to say. He had no information to give on that subject.

There is a point, sir, said Mr. Buchanan, in the intercourse between nations, at which diplomacy must end, and a nation must either consent to abandon her rights, or assert them by force. After having negotiated for a quarter of a century to obtain a treaty to redress the wrongs of our injured citizens, and after the French Chamber has once deliberately rejected that treaty, will not this point have been reached, should the Chamber again refuse to make the appropriation? If this be so, is it not right, is it not fair, to present the alternative to France? Would she not have just cause to complain if we should not adopt this very course? To inform her frankly and freely that we have arrived at this point, I am solemnly convinced, is the best diplomacy to which we can resort to obtain redress for the wrongs of the injured claimants. France will then have the alternative fairly presented; and it will be for her to decide whether she will involve herself in war with her ancient ally, rather than pay those claims which the Executive branch of her Government have determined to be just by a solemn treaty. Such an attitude on the part of America will do more for the execution of the treaty than any temporizing measures of policy which we can adopt. I never was more clearly impressed with the truth of any proposition.

France, from the language of the President, will have no right to consider this a menace. It is no more than to say, diplomacy has ended, and the treaty must be executed, or we shall, however reluctantly, be compelled to 237take redress into our own hands. France is a brave and a chivalrous nation; her whole history proves that she is not to be intimidated, even by Europe in arms; but she is wise as well as warlike. To inform her that our rights must be asserted, is to place her in the serious and solemn position of deciding whether she will resist the payment of a just debt by force. Whenever she is convinced that this result is inevitable, the money will be paid; and although I hope I may be mistaken, I believe there will be no payment until she knows we shall assume this attitude. France has never appeared to regard the question in this serious light.

It has been asked what the American Congress would do placed in similar circumstances. Would they appropriate money with a menace impending over their heads? I answer, no, never. But I should never consider it a menace, if, after refusing to vote an appropriation to carry a treaty into effect, a foreign government in the spirit of candor, in language mild and courteous, such as that used by the President, were to inform us they could not abandon their rights, and, however painful it may be, they should be compelled, by a sense of duty, to assert them by force.

After some further discussion, the resolution was so modified as to declare that it was at that time inexpedient to adopt any legislative measure in regard to the state of affairs between the United States and France. In this form the resolution was unanimously adopted.

The President’s message was received in Paris in the early part of January (1835). It was resented as a threat. The French minister at Washington was recalled, and on the 13th of January, the day before the vote in the Senate, Mr. Livingston, the minister of the United States at Paris, was informed that his passports were at his service. But a bill was introduced by the ministry in the Chambers, to make the necessary appropriation. It was passed in the latter part of April, but with an amendment making the payment conditional upon an apology from President Jackson for the language of his message of the previous December. There was little likelihood that any such apology would be made for language addressed by the President to the people of the United States through their representatives in Congress. On the contrary, in the early part of the next session (January, 1836) the world was somewhat startled by a recommendation made to Congress by the President, of partial non-intercourse with France.^[52] On the 18th of January, 238on a motion by Mr. Clay to refer this recommendation to the Committee on Foreign Affairs,

Mr. Buchanan said that he had been so much gratified with the message which had just been read, that he could not, and he thought he ought not, at this the very first moment, to refrain from expressing his entire approbation of its general tone and spirit. He had watched with intense anxiety the progress of our unfortunate controversy with France. He had hoped, sincerely hoped, that the explanations which had been made by Mr. Livingston, and officially approved by the President of the United States, would have proved satisfactory to the French government. In this he had found his hopes to be vain. After this effort had failed, he felt a degree of confidence, almost amounting to moral assurance, that the last message to Congress would have been hailed by France, as it was by the American people, as the olive branch which would have restored amity and good understanding between us and our ancient ally. Even in this, he feared, he was again doomed to be disappointed. The government of France, unless they change their determination, will not consider this message as sufficient. We have the terms clearly prescribed by the Duke de Broglie, upon which, and upon which alone, the French government will consent to comply with the treaty, and to pay the five millions of dollars to our injured fellow-citizens. Speculation is now at an end. The clouds and darkness which have hung over this question have vanished. It is now made clear as a sunbeam. The money will not be paid, says the organ of the French government, unless the Government of the United States shall address its claim officially in writing to France, accompanied by what appeared to him, and he believed would appear to the whole American people, without distinction of party, to be a degrading apology. The striking peculiarity of the case, the one which he would undertake to say distinguished it from any other case which had arisen in modern times, in the intercourse between independent nations, was, that the very terms of this apology were dictated to the American Government by the French Secretary of Foreign Affairs. One of these terms was, that it had never entered into the intention (pensée), the thought of this Government, to call in question the good faith of the government of France.

But the French Government proceed still further. Upon the refusal to make this apology, which they ought to have known would never be made—could never be made—they are not content to leave question where it then was. They have given us notice in advance that they will consider our refusal to 239make this degrading apology an evidence that the misunderstanding did not proceed on our part from mere error and mistake.

In addition to all this, the last note of the Duke de Broglie to Mr. Barton declares that the Government of the United States knows that henceforward the execution of the treaty must depend upon itself. They thus leave us to decide whether we shall make the apology in the prescribed terms, or abandon our claim to the fulfillment of the treaty.

He would not allow himself to express the feelings which were excited in his mind upon hearing these letters of the Duke de Broglie read. Most sincerely, most ardently, did he hope that the French government, when this message reached them, if not before, might reconsider their determination, and that all our difficulties might yet pass away. But their language is now clear, specific, incapable of ambiguity or doubt. It would, then, become our duty calmly, but firmly, to take such a stand as the interests and the honor of the country may require.

Mr. B. had already said much more than he intended when he rose. He would, however, make another remark before he took his seat. He felt a proper degree of confidence, he might add a great degree of confidence, in the President of the United States. He knew him to be honest and firm, and faithful to his country; prompt to resent its injuries and avenge its wrongs. He confessed he had anticipated a message of a stronger character. He had supposed that a general non-intercourse with France would, at least, have been recommended. But the recommendation was confined to the mere refusal to admit French ships or French productions to enter our ports. It left France free to receive her supplies of cotton from the United States, without which the manufacturers of that country could not exist. This was wise, it was prudent; it left to France to judge for herself if this unnatural contest must still continue, whether she would close her ports against our vessels and our productions.

In the spring of 1832 (Mr. B. did not recollect precisely the time) Congress passed an act to carry into effect our part of the treaty. Under this treaty, the wines of France had ever since been admitted into the United States upon the favorable terms therein stipulated. Her silks were imported free of duty, in contradistinction to those which came from beyond the Cape of Good Hope. She had for years been enjoying these privileges. Nothing milder, then, could possibly be recommended than to withdraw these advantages from her, and to exclude her vessels and her productions from our ports.

Mr. Buchanan said that when he made the observations which had called forth the remarks of the Senator from South Carolina, (Mr. Calhoun) he had believed the message to be the harbinger of peace, and not of war. This was still his opinion. In this respect he differed entirely from the gentleman. Under this impression, he had then risen merely to remark that, considering the provocation which we had received, the tone, the spirit, and the recommendations themselves, of the message, were mild and prudent, and were well 240calculated to make an impression upon France, and to render her sensible of her injustice.

It had been far from his intention to excite a general debate on the French question, and he would not be drawn into it now by the remarks of the Senator from South Carolina. He must, however, be permitted to say, he was sorry, very sorry, that the gentleman had proclaimed that, if war should come, we are the authors of that war, and it would be the fault, not of the French, but of the American Government. Such a declaration, proceeding from such a source, from a voice so powerful and so potent, would be heard on the other side of the Atlantic, and there might produce a most injurious effect. He was happy to say that this sentiment was directly at war with the opinion of our Committee on Foreign Relations, who, in their report of the last session, had expressed the decided opinion that the American Government, should it become necessary, must insist upon the execution of the treaty. It was at war with the unanimous resolution of the House of Representatives of the same session, declaring that the treaty must be maintained. He believed it was equally at war with the feelings and opinions of the American people.

Whilst he expressed his hope and his belief that this message would prove to be the olive branch of peace, still there was so much uncertainty in the event, that it now became our imperative duty to prepare for the worst. Shall we (said Mr. B.) whilst a powerful fleet is riding along our southern coast, in a menacing attitude, sit here and withhold from the President the means which are necessary to place our country in a state of defence? He trusted this would never, never be the case.

The messages and documents were then read, and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, as moved by Mr. Clay.

On the last night of the session, which terminated on the 3d-4th of March, 1835, an amendment made in the House of Representatives, to the Fortification bill, was before the Senate. It proposed:

“That the sum of three millions of dollars be and the same is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be expended, in whole or in part, under the direction of the President of the United States, for the military and naval service, including fortifications and ordnance and increase of the navy: Provided such expenditures shall be rendered necessary for the defence of the country, prior to the next meeting of Congress.”

The motive of this amendment was to enable the President to put the country into a more efficient state of defence, in view of the danger of a war with France. It was opposed by Mr. Webster and Mr. Clay as an unconstitutional mode of action, 241and also because the state of the French question did not require such action. Mr. Buchanan (on the 3d of March, 1835,) vindicated the amendment in the following manner:

Mr. Buchanan said he was astonished at the remarks which had been made by gentlemen on the subject of this appropriation. The most fearful apprehensions had been expressed, the destruction of our liberties had been predicted, if we should grant to the President three millions of dollars to defend the country, in case it should become necessary to expend it for that purpose, before the next meeting of Congress. For his part, he could realize no such dangers.

Gentlemen have said, and said truly, that the Constitution of the United States has conferred upon Congress, and Congress alone, the power of declaring war. When they go further, and state that this appropriation will enable the executive to make war upon France, without the consent of Congress, they are, in my humble judgment, entirely mistaken.

Sir, said Mr. B., what is the true nature, and what are the legitimate objects of this appropriation? Do we not know that, although the President cannot make offensive war against France, France may make war upon us; and that we may thus be involved in hostilities in spite of ourselves, before the next meeting of Congress? If the Chamber of Deputies should determine to violate the treaty, and to fix an enduring stigma upon the public faith of the French nation, is it certain that France may not proceed a step further, and strike the first blow? Mr. Livingston himself, in the correspondence which had been communicated to us by the President, has expressed serious apprehensions that this may be the result. France may consider war, eventually, to be inevitable; she may, and I trust does, believe that we have determined not to submit patiently to her violation of a solemn treaty and thus abandon the just claims of our injured citizens; and taking advantage of our unprepared condition, she may commence hostilities herself. The first blow is often half the battle between nations as well as individuals. Have we any security that such will not be her conduct? Have we any reason to believe she will wait until we are ready? Her past history forbids us to indulge too securely in any such belief. If she should adopt this course, in what a fearful condition shall we place the country, if we adjourn without making this appropriation! The Senate will observe that not a dollar of this money can be drawn from the Treasury, unless it shall become necessary for the defence of the country, prior to the next meeting of Congress.

Another circumstance which renders this appropriation indispensable is, that Congress cannot possibly be convened by the President much before their usual time of meeting. There are, I believe, nine States in this Union, who have not yet elected their representatives to the next Congress. Some of these elections will take place in April, and others not till August, and even October. We have now arrived almost at the last hour of our political 242existence; and shall we leave the country wholly defenceless until the meeting of the next Congress? Gentlemen have warned us of the fearful responsibility which we should incur in making this appropriation. Sir, said Mr. B., I warn them that the responsibility will be still more dreadful, should we refuse it. In that event, what will be our condition should we be attacked by France? Our sea-coast, from Georgia to Maine, will be exposed to the incursions of the enemy; our cities may be plundered and burned; the national character may be disgraced; and all this whilst we have an overflowing Treasury. When I view the consequences which may possibly flow from our refusal to make this grant, I repeat that the responsibility of withholding it may become truly dreadful. No portion of it shall rest upon my shoulders.

Our constitutional right to appropriate this money is unquestionable. Whilst I express this opinion, I am sorry that the present appropriation is not more specific in its objects. Appropriation bills ought to be passed in such a manner as to leave as little to executive discretion as possible. The purposes for which the money is to be applied ought to be clearly and distinctly stated. If there were time to do it, the bill might be improved in this respect. But, sir, this is an extraordinary crisis, and demands prompt action. We must now take it as it is, or not take it at all. There is no time left to make the changes which might be desired.

Gentlemen have contended that, under this appropriation, the President would be authorized to increase the army, and appoint as many new officers to command it as he thought proper. But this is not the case. He could not, under any just construction of this bill, raise a single new company, or appoint a single officer, not authorized by existing laws. No such power is conferred upon him by its terms. It will authorize him to expend three millions of the public money, should the contingency happen which it contemplates, for putting the vessels of war now in ordinary in a condition for actual service, and for completing those the building of which has already been authorized by Congress. The money may also be applied to the completion and repair of our fortifications, and in placing them in a state of security and defence against any attack. Should it become necessary to call out the militia under existing laws, to garrison these fortifications, or defend our coast, this money may also be expended for that purpose. There is nothing in the language of the appropriation to justify the construction that the President might raise new armies, and create new officers to command them.

It is my own impression that there will be no necessity for expending any portion of this money. If there should be, however: and it is the part of wisdom to provide against such a contingency; let the responsibility rest upon those who refuse the appropriation. The country will be left defenceless, and the very knowledge of this circumstance may invite an attack.

The entire Fortification Bill failed to be passed at this session, in consequence of the disagreement between the two houses in 243regard to this three million appropriation. At the next session, which began in December, 1835, Colonel Benton of Missouri introduced in the Senate certain resolutions for setting apart so much of the surplus revenue as might be necessary for the defence and permanent security of the country. On the 1st and 2d of February, 1836, Mr. Buchanan addressed the Senate on these resolutions as follows:

Mr. President: I am much better pleased with the first resolution offered by the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Benton) since he has modified it upon the suggestion of the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Grundy). When individuals have more money than they know how to expend, they often squander it foolishly. The remark applies, perhaps, with still greater force to nations. When our Treasury is overflowing, Congress, who are but mere trustees for the people, ought to be especially on their guard against wasteful expenditures of the public money. The surplus can be applied to some good and useful purpose. I am willing to grant all that may be necessary for the public defence but no more. I am therefore pleased that the resolution has assumed its present form.

The true question involved in this discussion is, on whom ought the responsibility to rest for having adjourned on the 3d of March last without providing for the defence of the country. There can be no doubt a fearful responsibility rests somewhere. For my own part, I should have been willing to leave the decision of this question to our constituents. I am a man of peace; and dislike the crimination and recrimination which this discussion must necessarily produce. But it is vain to regret what cannot now be avoided. The friends of the administration have been attacked; and we must now defend ourselves. I deem it necessary, therefore, to state the reasons why I voted, on the 3d of March last, in favor of the appropriation of three millions for the defence of the country, and why I glory in that vote.

The language used by Senators in reference to this appropriation has been very strong. It has been denounced as a violation of the Constitution. It has been declared to be such a measure as would not have received the support of the minority, had they believed it could prevail, and they would be held responsible for it. It has been stigmatized as most unusual—most astonishing—most surprising. And finally, to cap the climax, it has been proclaimed that the passage of such an appropriation would be virtually to create a dictator, and to surrender the power of the purse and the sword into the hands of the President.

I voted for that appropriation under the highest convictions of public duty, and I now intend to defend my vote against all these charges.

In examining the circumstances which not only justified this appropriation, but rendered it absolutely necessary, I am forced into the discussion of the French question. We have been told, that if we should go to war with 244France, we are the authors of that war. The Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Southard), has declared that it will be produced by the boastful vanity of one man, the petulance of another, and the fitful violence of a third. It would not be difficult to conjecture who are the individuals to whom the Senator alludes.

He has also informed us, that in the event of such a war, the guilt which must rest somewhere will be tremendous.

Now, sir, I shall undertake to prove, that scarcely an example exists in history of a powerful and independent nation having suffered such wrongs and indignities as we have done from France, with so much patience and forbearance. If France should now resort to arms,—if our defenceless seacoast should be plundered,—if the blood of our citizens should be shed,—the responsibility of the Senate, to use the language of the gentleman, will be tremendous. I shall not follow the example of the Senator, and say, their guilt,—because that would be to attribute to them an evil intention, which I believe did not exist.

In discussing this subject, I shall first present to the view of the Senate the precise attitude of the two nations towards each other, when the appropriation of three millions was refused, and then examine the reasons which have been urged to justify this refusal. After having done so, I shall exhibit our relations with France as they exist at the present moment, for the purpose of proving that we ought now to adopt the resolutions of the gentleman from Missouri, and grant all necessary appropriations for the defence of the country.

In discussing this subject, it is not my intention to follow the fortification bill either into the chamber of the committee of conference, or into the hall of the House of Representatives. It is not my purpose to explain the confusion which then existed, and which always must exist after midnight, on the last evening of the session. I shall contend that the Senate ought to have voted the three millions; that the fortification bill ought to have passed the Senate with this amendment; and that, therefore, the Senate is responsible not only for the loss of this appropriation, but for that of the entire bill.

What then was the attitude in which we stood towards France at the moment when the Senate rejected this appropriation for the defence of the country? What, at that moment, was known, or ought to have been known, in regard to this question by every Senator on this floor?

The justice of our claims upon France are now admitted by all mankind. Our generosity was equal to their justice. When she was crushed in the dust by Europe in arms—when her cities were garrisoned by a foreign foe—when her independence was trampled under foot, we refused to urge our claims. This was due to our ancient ally. It was due to our grateful remembrance of the days of other years. The testimony of Lafayette conclusively establishes this fact. In the Chamber of Deputies, on 13th June, 1833, he declared that we had refused to unite with the enemies of France in urging our claims in 1814 and 1815; and that, if we had done so, these claims would 245then have been settled. This circumstance will constitute one of the brightest pages of our history.

Was the sum secured to our injured fellow-citizens by the treaty of the 4th July, 1831, more than they had a right to demand? Let the report of our Committee on Foreign Relations, at the last session, answer this question. They concur entirely with the President, in the statement he had made in his message, that it was absolutely certain the indemnity fell far short of the actual amount of our just claims, independently of damages and interest for the detention; and that it was well known at the time that in this respect, the settlement involved a sacrifice. But there is now no longer room for any conjecture or doubt upon this subject. The commissioners under the treaty have closed their labors. From the very nature of their constitution, it became the interest of every claimant to reduce the other claims as much as possible, so that his own dividend might thus be increased. After a laborious and patient investigation, the claims which have been allowed by the commissioners amount to $9,352,193.47. Each claimant will receive but little more than half his principal, at the end of a quarter of a century, after losing all the interest.

Why then has this treaty remained without execution on the part of France, until this day? Our Committee on Foreign Relations, at the last session, declared their conviction that the King of France “had invariably, on all suitable occasions, manifested an anxious desire, faithfully and honestly, to fulfil the engagements contracted under his authority and in his name.” They say, that “the opposition to the execution of the treaty, and the payment of our just claims, does not proceed from the king’s government, but from a majority in the Chamber of Deputies.”

Now, sir, it is my purpose to contest this opinion, and to show, as I think I can conclusively, that it is not a just inference from the facts.

And here, to prevent all possible misconstruction, either on this side, or on the other side of the Atlantic, if by any accident my humble remarks should ever travel to such a distance, permit me to say that I am solely responsible for them myself. These opinions were in a degree formed while I was in a foreign land, and were there freely expressed upon all suitable occasions. I was then beyond the sphere of party influence and felt only as an American citizen.

Is it not then manifest, to use the language of Mr. Livingston in his note to the Count de Rigny of the 3d August, 1834, that the French government have never appreciated the importance of the subject at its just value? There are two modes in which the king could have manifested this anxious desire faithfully to fulfil the treaty. These are, by words and by actions. When a man’s words and his actions correspond, you have the highest evidence of his sincerity. Even then he may be a hypocrite in the eyes of that Being before whom the fountains of human action are unveiled. But when a man’s words and his actions are at variance,—when he promises and does not perform or even attempt to perform,—when “he speaks the word of 246promise to the ear and breaks it to the hope,”—the whole world will at once pronounce him insincere. If this be true in the transactions of common life, with how much more force does it apply to the intercourse between diplomatists? The deceitfulness of diplomacy has become almost a proverb. In Europe the talent of over-reaching gives a minister the glory of diplomatic skill. The French school has been distinguished in this art. To prove it, I need only mention the name of Talleyrand. The American school teaches far different lessons. On this our success has, in a great degree, depended. The skillful diplomatists of Europe are foiled by the downright honesty and directness of purpose which have characterized all our negotiations.

Even the established forms of diplomacy contain much unmeaning language, which is perfectly understood by everybody, and deceives nobody. If ministers have avowed their sincerity, and their ardent desire to execute the treaty; to deny them, on our part, would be insulting, and might lead to the most unpleasant consequences. In forming an estimate of their intentions, therefore, every wise man will regard their actions, rather than their words. By their deeds they shall be known. Let us then test the French government by this touchstone of truth.

The ratifications of the treaty of the 4th July, 1831, were exchanged at Washington, on the 2d February, 1832. When this treaty arrived in Paris, the French Chambers were in session, and they continued in session for several weeks. They did not adjourn, until the 19th of April. No time more propitious for presenting this treaty to the Chambers, could have been selected, than that very moment. Europe then was, as I believe it still is, one vast magazine of gunpowder. It was generally believed, that the Polish revolution was the spark which would produce the explosion. There was imminent danger of a continental war, in which France, to preserve her existence, would have to put forth all her energies. Russia, Prussia, and Austria, were armed and ready for the battle. It was then the clear policy of France to be at a good understanding with the United States. If it had been the ardent desire of the king’s government, to carry into effect the stipulations of the treaty, they would have presented it to the Chambers before their adjournment. This would undoubtedly have been the course pursued by any President of the United States, under similar circumstances. But the treaty was not presented.

I freely admit, that this omission, standing by itself, might be explained by the near approach of the adjournment, at the time the treaty arrived from Washington. It is one important link, however, in the chain of circumstances, which cannot be omitted.

The Government of the United States proceeded immediately to execute their part of the treaty. By the act of the 13th July, 1832, the duties on French wines were reduced according to its terms, to take effect from the day of the exchange of ratifications. At the same session, the Congress of the United States, impelled no doubt by their kindly feelings towards France, which had been roused into action by what they believed to be a final and 247equitable settlement of all our disputes, voluntarily reduced the duty upon silks coming from this side of the Cape of Good Hope to five per cent., whilst those beyond were fixed at ten per cent. And at the next session, on the 2d of March, 1833, this duty of five per cent. was taken off altogether; and ever since, French silks have been admitted into our country free of duty. There is now, in fact, a discriminating duty of ten per cent. in their favor, over silks from beyond the Cape of Good Hope.

What has France gained by these measures, in duties on her wines and her silks, which she would otherwise have been bound to pay? I have called upon the Secretary of the Treasury, for the purpose of ascertaining the amount. I now hold in my hand a tabular statement, prepared at my request, which shows, that had the duties remained what they were at the date of the ratification of the treaty, these articles, since that time, would have paid into the Treasury on the 30th September, 1834, the sum of $3,061,525. Judging from the large importations which have since been made, I feel no hesitation in declaring it as my opinion that, at the present moment, these duties would amount to more than the whole indemnity which France has engaged to pay to our fellow-citizens. Before the conclusion of the ten years mentioned in the treaty, she will have been freed from the payment of duties to an amount considerably above twelve millions of dollars.

By the same act of the 13th July, 1832, a board of commissioners was established to receive, examine, and decide the claims of our citizens under the treaty, who were to meet on the first day of the following August. This act also directed the Secretary of the Treasury to cause the several instalments, with the interest thereon, payable to the United States in virtue of the convention, to be received from the French government and transferred to the United States in such manner as he may deem best. In this respect the provisions of the act corresponded with the terms of the treaty, which prescribe that the money shall be paid into the hands of such person or persons as shall be authorized to receive it by the Government of the United States.

Were the French government immediately informed of all these proceedings? Who can doubt it? Certainly no one at all acquainted with the vigilance and zeal of their diplomatic agents.

The 19th of November, 1832, the day for the meeting of the Chambers, at length arrived.—Every American was anxious to know what the king would say in his speech concerning the treaty. No one could doubt but that he would strongly recommend to the Chambers to make the appropriation of twenty-five millions of francs, the first instalment of which would become due on the 2d of February following. All, however, which the speech contains in relation to the treaty is comprised in the following sentences: “I have also ordered my minister to communicate to you the treaty concluded on the 4th July, 1831, between my government and that of the United States of America. This arrangement puts an end to the reciprocal claims of the two countries.” Now, sir, I am well aware of the brevity and non-committal character of kings’ speeches in Europe. I know the necessity which exists 248there for circumspection and caution. But making every fair allowance for these considerations, I may at least say, that the speech does not manifest an anxious desire to carry the treaty into effect. What might the king have said; what ought he have said; what would he have said had he felt this anxious desire? It might all have been embraced in a single additional sentence, such as the following: “The Congress of the United States have already provided for the admission of French wines into their ports upon the terms of this treaty, and have voluntarily reduced their duties upon French silks, I must, therefore, request you to grant me the means of discharging the first instalment which will become due, under this treaty, on the 2d day of February next.” The king did not even ask the Chambers for the money necessary to redeem the faith of France. In this respect the debt due to the United States is placed in striking contrast to the Greek loan.—Immediately after the two sentences of the speech, which I have already quoted, the king proceeds: “You will likewise be called to examine the treaty by which Prince Otho of Bavaria is called to the throne of Greece. I shall have to request from you the means of guaranteeing, in union with my allies, a loan which is indispensable for the establishment of the new State founded by our cares and concurrence.”

The establishment of the new State founded by our cares and concurrence! Russia, sir, has made greater advances by her skill in diplomacy than by her vast physical power. Unless I am much mistaken, the creation of this new State, with Prince Otho as its king, will accomplish the very object which it was the interest and purpose of France to defeat. It will, in the end, virtually convert Greece into a Russian province. I could say much more on the subject, but I forbear. My present purpose is merely to present in a striking view, the difference between the king’s language in relation to our treaty, and that treaty which placed the son of the king of Bavaria on the throne of Greece.

Time passed away, and the 2d February, 1833, the day when the first instalment under the treaty became due, arrived. It was to be paid “into the hands of such person or persons as shall be authorized by the Government of the United States to receive it.” The money on that day ought to have been ready at Paris. But strange, but most wonderful as it may appear, although the Chambers had been in session from the 19th of November until the 2d of February, the king’s government had never even presented the treaty to the Chambers,—had never even asked them for a grant of the money necessary to fulfil its engagements. Well might Mr. Livingston say, that they had never properly appreciated the importance of the subject.

The Government of the United States, knowing that the king in his speech had promised to present the treaty to the Chambers, and knowing that they had been in session since November, might have taken means to demand the first instalment at Paris on the 2d day of February. Strictly speaking, it was their duty to do so, acting as trustees for the claimants. But they did not draw a bill of exchange at Washington for the first instalment, 249until five days after it had become due at Paris. This bill was not presented to the French government for payment until the 23d of March, 1833. Even at that day the French ministry had not presented either the treaty, or a bill to carry it into effect, to the Chambers. The faith of France was thus violated by the neglect of the king’s government, long before any bill was presented. They, and not the Chambers, are responsible for this violation. It was even impossible for the Chambers to prevent it. Had this treaty and bill been laid before them in time to have enabled them to redeem the faith of France, the loyalty of the French character would never have permitted them to be guilty of a positive violation of national honor. The faith of the nation was forfeited before they were called upon to act. The responsibility was voluntarily assumed by the king’s ministers. The Chambers are clear of it. Besides, the ministry were all powerful with the Chambers during that session. They carried everything they urged. Even the bill providing the means of guaranteeing the Greek loan became a law. Can it then for a single moment be believed that if a bill to carry into effect our treaty—a treaty securing such important advantages to France—had been presented at an early period of the session, and had been pressed by the ministry, that they would have failed in the attempt? At all events, it was their imperative duty to pursue this course. The aspect of the political horizon in Europe was still lowering. There was still imminent danger of a general war. France was still in a position to make her dread any serious misunderstanding with the United States.

After all this, on the 26th March, the Duke de Broglie, in a note to Mr. Niles, our chargé d’affaires at Paris, stated that it was “a source of regret, and, indeed, of astonishment, that the Government of the United States did not think proper to have an understanding with that of France, before taking this step.” What step? The demand of an honest debt, almost two months after it had been due, under a solemn treaty. Indeed, the duke, judging from the tone of his note, appears almost to have considered the demand an insult. To make a positive engagement to pay a fixed sum on a particular day, and when that sum is demanded nearly two months after, to express astonishment to the creditor, would, in private life, be considered trifling and evasive.

The excuse made by the French ministry for their conduct is altogether vain. Had they dreaded the vote of the Chambers—had they been afraid to appear before them with their treaty and their bill, they would, and they ought to have communicated their apprehensions to this Government, and asked it to suspend the demand of the money. But they had never whispered such a suspicion, after the exchange of their ratifications of the treaty; and the first intimation of it on this side of the Atlantic, was accompanied by the astounding fact that the French government had dishonored our bill. It is true, that before the treaty was signed, they had expressed some apprehensions to Mr. Rives on this subject. These, it would seem, from their subsequent conduct, were merely diplomatic, and intended 250to produce delay; because, from the date of the treaty, on the 4th July, 1831, until after our bill of exchange was dishonored in March, 1833, no intimation of danger from that quarter was ever suggested. These circumstances made a great noise throughout Europe, and soon became the subject of general remark.

On the 6th of April, 1833, a year and more than two months after the exchange of the ratifications at Washington, the treaty and bill were first presented to the French Chambers. The session closed on the 25th of April, without any further action on the subject. No attempt was made by the ministry to press it; and as the session would terminate so soon, perhaps no attempt ought to have been made. But, as a new session was to commence the day after the termination of the old, and to continue two months, a favorable opportunity was thus presented to urge the passage of the law upon the Chambers. Was this done? No, sir. The ministry still continued to pursue the same course. They suffered the remainder of the month of April to pass, the month of May to pass, and not until the eleventh of June, only fifteen days before the close of the session, did they again present the bill to carry into effect the treaty. It was referred to a committee, of which Mr. Benjamin Delessert was the chairman. On the 18th of June, he made a report. This report contains a severe reprimand of the French government for not having presented the bill at an earlier period of the session; and expresses the hope that the treaty may be communicated at the opening of the next session. If we are to judge of the opinion of the Chamber from the tone and character of this report, instead of being hostile to the execution of the treaty, had it been presented to them in proper time, they felt every disposition to regard it in a favorable light. I shall read the whole report—it is very short, and is as follows:

“Gentlemen: The committee charged by you, to examine the bill relative to the treaty, concluded on the 4th of July, 1831, between France and the United States, has demanded a number of documents and reports, which must be examined, in order to obtain a complete knowledge of so important a transaction.

“The committee was soon convinced that a conscientious examination of these papers would require much time; and that, at so advanced a period of the session, its labors would have no definitive result. It regrets that, from motives which the government only can explain, the bill was not presented earlier to the Chamber for discussion. It regrets this so much the more as it is convinced of the importance of the treaty, which essentially interests our maritime commerce, our agriculture, and our manufactures.

“Several chambers of commerce, particularly those of Paris and Lyons, have manifested an ardent desire that the business should be speedily terminated.

“The committee would be satisfied if, after a deeper study of the question, it could enlighten the Chamber with regard to the justice of the claims alleged by each of the parties to the treaty, and which form the basis of it; 251but as time does not allow a definitive report to be made on the subject, it considers itself as the organ of the Chamber, in expressing the wish that this treaty be communicated, at the opening of the next session; and that its result may be such as to strengthen the bonds of friendship, which must ever exist between two nations so long united by common interest and sympathy.”

After a careful review of this whole transaction, I am convinced that the government of France never would have pursued such a course towards us, had they entertained a just sense of our power, and our willingness to exert it in behalf of our injured fellow-citizens. Had Russia or Austria been her creditors, instead of ourselves, the debt would have been paid when it became due; or, at the least, the ministers of the king would have exerted themselves, in a far different manner, to obtain the necessary appropriation from the Chambers. I am again constrained, however reluctantly, to adopt the opinion which I had formed at the moment. Our fierce political strife in this country is not understood in Europe; and least of all, perhaps, in France. During the autumn of 1832, and the session of 1832–3, it was believed abroad that we were on the very eve of a revolution; that our glorious Union was at the point of dissolution. I speak, sir, from actual knowledge. Whilst the advocates of despotism were looking forward, with eager hope, to see the last free republic blotted out from the face of nations, the friends of freedom throughout the world were disheartened, and dreaded the result of our experiment. The storm did rage in this country with the utmost violence. It is no wonder that those friends of liberty, on the other side of the Atlantic, who did not know how to appreciate the recuperative energies of a free and enlightened people, governed by Federal and State institutions of their own choice, should have been alarmed for the safety of the Republic. For myself I can say that I never felt any serious apprehension; yet the thrill of delight with which I received the news of the passage of the famous compromise law of March, 1833, can never be effaced from my memory. I did not then stop to inquire into the nature of its provisions. It was enough for me to know that the Republic was safe, not only in my own opinion, but in the opinion of the world.

Suppose, sir, that the President of the United States, under similar circumstances, had withheld a treaty from Congress requiring an appropriation, for fourteen months after it had been duly ratified, and had thus forfeited the national faith to a foreign government, what would have been the consequence? Sir, he ought to have been, he would have been impeached. No circumstances could ever have justified such conduct in the eyes of the American Congress or the American people.

After all the provocation which the President had received, as the representative of his country, what was his conduct? It might have been supposed that this violent man, as the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Southard) has designated him, would at once have recommended decisive measures. Judging from his energy,—from his well-known devotion to the interests of 252his country,—and above all, from his famous declaration to ask nothing from foreign nations but what was right, and to submit to nothing wrong, I should have expected from him an indignant message at the commencement of the next session of Congress. Instead of that, the message of December, 1833, in relation to French affairs, is of the mildest character. It breathes a spirit of confident hope that our ancient ally would do us justice during the next session of the Chambers. His exposition of the subject is concluded by the following declaration:

“As this subject involves important interests, and has attracted a considerable share of the public attention, I have deemed it proper to make this explicit statement of its actual condition; and should I be disappointed in the hope now entertained, the subject will be again brought to the notice of Congress in such a manner as the occasion may require.”

And thus ends the first act of this astonishing historical drama. Throughout the whole of it, beginning, middle and end, the French government, and not the French Chambers, were exclusively to blame.

We have now arrived at the mission of Mr. Livingston. He reached Paris in September, 1833. The Duc de Broglie assured him “that the king’s government would willingly and without hesitation promise to direct the deliberations of the Chambers to the projet de loi relative to the execution of the convention of July 4, 1831, on the day after the Chamber is constituted, and to employ every means to secure the happy conclusion of an affair, the final determination of which the United States cannot desire more ardently than ourselves.” After this assurance, and after all that had passed, it was confidently expected that the king would, in strong terms, have recommended the adoption of the appropriation by the Chambers. In this we were again doomed to disappointment. In his opening speech he made no direct allusion to the subject. He simply says, that, “the financial laws, and those required for the execution of treaties, will be presented to you.”

The bill was presented, and debated, and finally rejected by the Chamber of Deputies on the 1st day of April, 1834, by a vote of 176 to 168. It is not my present purpose to dwell upon the causes of this rejection. No doubt the principal one was that the French ministers were surrounded near the conclusion of the debate, and were unable at the moment to show that the captures at St. Sebastians were not included in our treaty with Spain. I am sorry they were not better prepared upon this point; but I attribute to them no blame on that account.

It has been urged over and over again, both on this floor and elsewhere, that the rejection of the treaty was occasioned by the publication in this country of Mr. Rives’s letter to Mr. Livingston of the 8th of July, 1831. Is this the fact? If it be so it ought to be known to the world. If it be not, both the character of this Government and of Mr. Rives should be rescued from the imputation. What is the opinion expressed in this letter? Is it that the American claimants would obtain, under the treaty, more than the amount of their just claims? No such thing. Is it that they would obtain the 253amount of their just claims with interest? Not even this. The negotiator merely expresses the opinion that they would receive every cent of the principal. He does not allege that they would receive one cent of interest for a delay of nearly a quarter of a century. This opinion is evidently founded upon that expressed by Mr. Gallatin in a despatch dated on the 14th January, 1822, cited by Mr. Rives, in which the former expresses his belief that five millions of dollars would satisfy all our just claims. It ought to be observed that the sum stipulated to be paid by the treaty is only 25,000,000 of francs, or about $4,700,000; and that more than nine years had elapsed between the date of Mr. Gallatin’s despatch and the signing of the treaty. These facts all appear on the face of the letter, with the additional fact that the statements of the claimants, which have from time to time been presented to Congress, carry the amount of the claims much higher. These statements, however, Mr. Rives did not believe were a safe guide.

This is the amount of the letter, when fairly analyzed, which, it is alleged, destroyed the treaty before the French Chambers. If a copy of it had been placed in the hands of every Deputy, it could not possibly have produced any such effect.

That it did not occasion the rejection of the treaty is absolutely certain. I have examined the whole debate for the purpose of discovering any allusion to this letter; but I have examined it in vain. Not the slightest trace of the letter can be detected in any of the numerous speeches delivered on that occasion. The topics of opposition were various, and several of them of a strange character; but the letter is not even once alluded to throughout the whole debate. If its existence were known at the time in the French Chamber, this letter, written by a minister to his own government, expressing a favorable opinion of the result of his own negotiations, was a document of a character so natural, so much to be expected, that not one Deputy in opposition to the treaty believed it to be of sufficient importance even to merit a passing notice. Still, I have often thought it strange it had never been mentioned in the debate. The mystery is now resolved. The truth is, this letter, which is alleged to have produced such fatal effects, was entirely unknown to the members of the French Chamber when they rejected the treaty. This fact is well established by a letter from Mr. Jay, the chairman of the committee appointed by the Chamber of Deputies to investigate our claims, addressed to Mr. Gibbes, and dated at Paris on the 24th January, 1835. I shall read it.

(Extract of a letter from Mr. Jay to Mr. Gibbes, dated 24th January, 1835.)—“It is asserted in the American prints that the rejection of the American treaty by the Chamber of Deputies, at their last session, was chiefly owing to the publication of a letter from Mr. Rives to his own Government. This is an error, which justice to that distinguished statesman, and a sense of his unremitting exertions to promote the interests of his Government while here, induce me formally to contradict. No such evidence appears in the debates; and in none of my conversations with the members have I heard his letter 254alleged as the motive for disputing the amount due. I much question, indeed, if any other Deputy than myself ever read the letter alluded to.”

We have now arrived at that point of time when a majority of the French Chambers arrayed themselves against the treaty. This decision was made on the 1st April, 1834. Some apprehensions then prevailed among the king and his ministers. The business was now becoming serious. New assurances had now become necessary to prevent the President from presenting the whole transaction to Congress, which they knew would still be in session, when the information of the rejection would reach the United States. In his annual message, at the commencement of the session, it will be recollected, he had declared that should he be disappointed in the hope then entertained, he would again bring the subject before Congress, in such a manner as the occasion might require. They knew that he was a man who performed his promises, and a great effort was to be made to induce him to change his purpose.

Accordingly a French brig of war, the Cuirassier, is fitted out with despatches to Mr. Serrurier. They reached him on the 3d June. On the 4th, he has an interview with Mr. McLane, and makes explanations which the latter very properly requests may be reduced to writing. In compliance with this request, the French minister, on the 5th, addresses a note to Mr. McLane. After expressing the regrets of the French government at the rejection of the bill, he uses the following language: “The king’s government, sir, after this rejection, the object of so much painful disappointment to both governments, has deliberated, and its unanimous determination has been to make an appeal from the first vote of the present Chamber to the next Chamber, and to appear before the next legislature with its treaty and its bill in hand.

“It flatters itself that the light already thrown upon this serious question, during these first debates, and the expression of the public wishes becoming each day more clear and distinct, and, finally, a more mature examination, will have, in the mean time, modified the minds of persons, and that its own conviction will become the conviction of the Chambers. The king’s government, sir, will make every loyal and constitutional effort to that effect, and will do all that its persevering persuasion of the justice and of the mutual advantages of the treaty authorizes you to expect from it. Its intention, moreover, is to do all that our constitution allows, to hasten, as much as possible, the period of the new presentation of the rejected law.

“Such, sir, are the sentiments, such the intentions of his majesty’s government. I think I may rely that, on its part, the Government of the Republic will avoid, with foreseeing solicitude, in this transitory state of things, all that might become a fresh cause of irritation between the two countries, compromit the treaty, and raise up an obstacle perhaps insurmountable, to the views of reconciliation and harmony which animate the king’s council.”

Now, sir, examine this letter, even without any reference to the answer of Mr. McLane, and can there be a doubt as to its true construction? It was not merely the disposition, but “it was the intention of the king’s government to do all that their constitution allows; to hasten, as much as possible, 255the period of the new presentation of the rejected law.” The President knew that under the constitution of France the king could at any time convoke the Chambers upon three weeks’ notice. It was in his power, therefore, to present this law to the Chambers whenever he thought proper. The promise was to hasten this presentation as much as possible. Without any thing further the President had a right confidently to expect that the Chambers would be convoked in season to enable him to present their decision to the Congress of the United States in his next annual message. The assurance was made on the 5th June, and Congress did not assemble until the beginning of December. But the letter of Mr. McLane, of the 27th June, removes all possible doubt from this subject. He informs Mr. Serrurier that “the President is still unable to understand the causes which led to the result of the proceeding in the Chamber, especially when he recollected the assurances which had so often been made by the king and his ministers, of their earnest desire to carry the convention into effect, and the support which the Chamber had afforded in all the other measures proposed by the king.” And again:

“The assurances which M. Serrurier’s letter contains, of the adherence of the king’s government to the treaty, of its unanimous determination to appeal from the decision of the present to the new Chamber, and its conviction that the public wish, and a mature examination of the subject, will lead to a favorable result, and its intention to make every constitutional effort to that effect, and finally, its intention to do all that the constitution allows to hasten the presentation of the new law, have been fully considered by the President.

“Though fully sensible of the high responsibility which he owes to the American people, in a matter touching so nearly the national honor, the President, still trusting to the good faith and justice of France, willing to manifest a spirit of forbearance so long as it may be consistent with the rights and dignity of his country, and truly desiring to preserve those relations of friendship, which, commencing in our struggle for independence, form the true policy of both nations, and sincerely respecting the king’s wishes, will rely upon the assurances which M. Serrurier has been instructed to offer, and will therefore await with confidence the promised appeal to the new Chamber.

“The President, in desiring the undersigned to request that his sentiments on this subject may be made known to his majesty’s government, has instructed him also to state his expectation that the king, seeing the great interests now involved in the subject, and the deep solicitude felt by the people of the United States respecting it, will enable him, when presenting the subject to Congress, as his duty will require him to do at the opening of their next session, to announce at that time the result of that appeal, and of his majesty’s efforts for its success.”

Had this letter of Mr. McLane placed a different construction upon the engagement of the French government from that which Mr. Serrurier intended to communicate, it was his duty to make the necessary explanations 256without delay. He, in that case, would have done so instantly. It was a subject of too much importance to suffer any misapprehension to exist concerning it for a single moment.

Notwithstanding all which had passed, the President, on the faith of these assurances of the French government, suffered Congress to adjourn without presenting the subject to their view. This rash, this violent man, instigated by his own good feelings towards our ancient ally, and by his love of peace, determines that he would try them once more, that he once more would extend the olive branch before presenting to Congress and the nation a history of our wrongs. I confess I do not approve of this policy. I think the time had then arrived to manifest to France some sensibility on our part on account of her delay in executing the treaty. I believe that such a course would have been dictated by sound policy.

What were the consequences of this new manifestation of the kindly feelings of the President towards France? Was it properly appreciated by the French government? Was it received in the liberal and friendly spirit from which it had proceeded? Let the sequel answer these questions. I shall read you Mr. Livingston’s opinion on the subject. In a letter to Mr. Forsyth, under date of the 22d November, 1834, he thus expresses himself:

“I do not hope for any decision on our affairs before the middle of January. One motive for delay is an expectation that the message of the President may arrive before the discussion, and that it may contain something to show a strong national feeling on the subject. This is not mere conjecture: I know the fact; and I repeat now, from a full knowledge of the case, what I have more than once stated in my former despatches as my firm persuasion, that the moderate tone taken by our Government, when the rejection was first known, was attributed by some to indifference, or to a conviction on the part of the President that he would not be supported in any strong measure by the people, and by others to a consciousness that the convention had given us more than we were entitled to ask.”

I shall now proceed to show in what manner the French government performed the engagement which had been made by their representative in Washington to hasten the presentation of the rejected law as much as possible.

The Chambers met on the 31st July, and the king made them a speech. This speech contains no allusion to the subject of the treaty except the following: “The laws necessary for carrying treaties into effect, and those still required for the accomplishment of the promises of the Chamber, will be presented to you in the course of this session.” The rejected bill was not presented. After a session of two weeks, the Chambers were prorogued on the 16th August until the 29th December,—a day, almost a month after the next meeting of Congress.

I admit that strong reasons existed for dispensing with that part of the obligation which required the French government to present the bill at this short session. No good reason has ever been alleged to excuse them for proroguing 257the Chambers until so late a day as the 29th of December. They might have met, and they ought to have met, at an early period of the autumn. They have heretofore met, on different occasions, for the despatch of business, in every month of the year. It was in vain that Mr. Livingston urged the necessity of an earlier meeting on the Count de Rigny. It was in vain that he appealed to the positive engagement of the French government made by Mr. Serrurier. It was in vain that he declared to him, “that the President could not, at the opening of the next session of Congress, avoid laying before that body a statement of the then position of affairs on this interesting subject, nor, under any circumstances, permit that session to end, as it must, on the third of March, without recommending such measures as he may deem that justice and the honor of the country may require.” All his remonstrances were disregarded. Instead of hastening the presentation of the rejected law as much as possible, they refused to assemble the Chambers in time even to present the bill before the meeting of Congress. Their meeting was so long delayed, as to render it almost impossible that their determination should be known in this country before the close of the session, notwithstanding the President had agreed not to present the subject to Congress at the previous session, under a firm conviction that he would receive this determination in time to lay it before them at the commencement of their next session. Is there a Senator in this hall, who can believe for a moment, that if the President had been informed the rejected bill would not be laid before the Chambers until the 29th December, he would have refrained from communicating to Congress, at their previous session, the state of the controversy between the two countries? Upon this construction, the engagement of the French government was mere words, without the slightest meaning; and the national vessel which brought it in such solemn form, might much better have remained at home.

What was the apology—what was the pretext under which the king’s government refused to assemble the Chambers at an earlier period? It was, that Mr. Serrurier had made no engagement to that effect, and that the intention which he had expressed in behalf of his government to do all that the constitution allows, to hasten, as much as possible, the period of the new presentation of the rejected law, meant no more than that this was their disposition. The word “intention” is thus changed into “disposition” by the Count de Rigny, and the whole engagement which was presented to the President in such an imposing form, was thus converted into a mere unmeaning profession of their desire to hasten this presentation as much as possible.

Sir, at the commencement of the session of Congress, it became the duty of the President to speak, and what could any American expect that he would say? The treaty had been violated in the first instance, by the ministers of the French king, in neglecting to lay it before the Chambers until after the first instalment was due. It was then twice submitted, at so late a period of the session, that it was impossible for the Chambers to examine and decide the question before their adjournment. On the last of these occasions, 258the chairman of the committee, to which the subject was referred, had reported a severe reprimand against the government, for not having sooner presented the bill, and expressed a hope that it might be presented at an early period of the next session. It was then rejected by the Chamber of Deputies; and when the French government had solemnly engaged to hasten the presentation of the rejected law, as soon as their constitution would permit, they prorogue the Chambers to the latest period which custom sanctions, in the very face of the remonstrances of the minister of the United States. I ask again, sir, before such an array of circumstances, what could any man, what could any American expect the President would say in his message? The cup of forbearance had been drained by him to the very dregs. It was then his duty to speak so as to be heard and to be regarded on the other side of the Atlantic. If the same spirit which dictated the message, or anything like it, had been manifested by Congress, the money, in my opinion, would ere this have been paid.

The question was then reduced to a single point. We demanded the execution of a solemn treaty; it had been refused. France had promised again to bring the question before the Chambers as soon as possible. The Chambers were prorogued until the latest day. The President had every reason to believe that France was trifling with us, and that the treaty would again be rejected. Is there a Senator, within the sound of my voice, who, if France had finally determined not to pay the money, would have tamely submitted to this violation of national faith? Not one!

The late war with Great Britain elevated us in the estimation of the whole world. In every portion of Europe, we have reason to be proud that we are American citizens. We have paid dearly for the exalted character we now enjoy among the nations, and we ought to preserve it and transmit it unimpaired to future generations. To them it will be a most precious inheritance.

If, after having compelled the weaker nations of the world to pay us indemnities for captures made from our citizens, we should cower before the power of France, and abandon our rights against her, when they had been secured by a solemn treaty, we should be regarded as a mere Hector among the nations. The same course which you have pursued towards the weak, you must pursue towards the powerful. If you do not, your name will become a by-word and a proverb.

But under all the provocations which the country had received, what is the character of that message? Let it be scanned with eagle eyes, and there is nothing in its language at which the most fastidious critic can take offence. It contains an enumeration of our wrongs in mild and dignified language, and a contingent recommendation of reprisals, in case the indemnity should again be rejected by the Chambers. But in this, and in all other respects, it defers entirely to the judgment of Congress. Every idea of an intended menace is excluded by the President’s express declaration. He says: “Such a measure ought not to be considered by France as a menace. Her pride and 259power are too well known to expect any thing from her fears, and preclude the necessity of the declaration, that nothing partaking of the character of intimidation is intended by us.”

I ask again, is it not forbearing in its language? Is there a single statement in it not founded upon truth? Does it even state the whole truth against France? Are there not strong points omitted? All these questions must be answered in the affirmative. On this subject we have strong evidence from the Duke de Broglie himself. In his famous letter to Mr. Pageot of June 17th, 1835,—the arrow of the Parthian as he flew,—this fact is admitted. He says:

“If we examine in detail the message of the President of the United States, (I mean that part of it which concerns the relations between the United States and France,) it will possibly be found, that passing successively from phrase to phrase, none will be met that cannot bear an interpretation more or less plausible, nor of which, strictly speaking, it cannot be said that it is a simple exposé of such a fact, true in itself, or the assertion of such or such a right which no one contests, or the performance of such or such an obligation imposed on the President by the very nature of his functions. There will certainly be found several in which the idea of impeaching the good faith of the French government, or of acting upon it through menace or intimidation, is more or less disavowed.”

It was the whole message, and not any of the detached parts, at which the French government chose to take offence.

It is not my present purpose to discuss the propriety of the recommendation of reprisals, or whether that was the best mode of redress which could have been suggested. Some decided recommendation, however, was required from the executive, both by public opinion and by the wrongs which we had so long patiently endured.

Who can suppose that the executive intended to menace France, or to obtain from her fears what would be denied by her sense of justice? The President, in this very message, expressly disclaims such an idea. Her history places her far above any such imputation. The wonder is, how she could have ever supposed the President, against his own solemn declaration, intended to do her any such injustice. She ought to have considered it as it was, a mere executive recommendation to Congress, not intended for her at all—not to operate upon her fears, but upon their deliberations in deciding whether any and what measures should be adopted to secure the execution of the treaty. But on this subject I shall say more hereafter.

We have now arrived at the special message of the President to Congress of the 26th February last; a document which has a most important bearing on the appropriation of the three millions which was rejected by the Senate. I have given this historical sketch of our controversy with France, for the purpose of bringing Senators to the very point of time, and to the precise condition of this question, when the Senate negatived that appropriation.

260What had Congress done in relation to the French question when this message was presented to us? Nothing, sir, nothing. The Senate had unanimously passed a resolution on the 15th January, that it was inexpedient, at present, to adopt any legislative measure, in regard to the state of affairs between the United States and France. This unanimity was obtained by two considerations. The one was, that the French Chambers had been convened, though not for the purpose of acting upon our treaty, on the first, instead of the twenty-ninth of December, a fact unknown to the President at the date of his message. The other, that this circumstance afforded a reasonable ground of hope, that we might learn their final determination before the close of our session on the 3d March. But whatever may have been the causes, the Senate had determined that, for the present, nothing should be done.

In the House of Representatives, at the date of the special message, on the 26th February, no measure whatever had been adopted. The President had just cause to believe that the sentiments contained in his message to Congress, at the commencement of their session, were not in unison with the feelings of either branch of the legislature. He therefore determined to lay all the information in his possession before Congress, and leave it for them to decide whether any or what measures should be adopted for the defence of the country. I shall read this message. It is as follows:

“I transmit to Congress a report from the Secretary of State, with copies of all the letters received from Mr. Livingston since the message to the House of Representatives of the 6th instant, of the instructions given to that minister, and of all the late correspondence with the French government in Paris, or in Washington, except a note of Mr. Serrurier, which, for the reasons stated in the report, is not now communicated.

“It will be seen that I have deemed it my duty to instruct Mr. Livingston to quit France with his legation, and return to the United States, if an appropriation for the fulfilment of the convention shall be refused by the Chambers.

“The subject being now, in all its present aspects, before Congress, whose right it is to decide what measures are to be pursued on that event, I deem it unnecessary to make further recommendation, being confident that, on their part, every thing will be done to maintain the rights and honor of the country which the occasion requires.”

The President leaves the whole question to Congress. What was the information then communicated? That a very high state of excitement existed against us in France. That the French minister had been recalled from this country; an act which is generally the immediate precursor of hostilities between nations. Besides, Mr. Livingston, who was a competent judge and on the spot, with the best means of knowledge, informed his Government that he would not be surprised, should the law be rejected, if they anticipated our reprisals, by the seizure of our vessels in port, or the attack of our ships in the Mediterranean, by a superior force. Such were his apprehensions, upon 261this subject, that he felt it to be his duty, without delay, to inform Commodore Patterson of the state of things, so that he might be upon his guard.

Ought these apprehensions of Mr. Livingston to have been disregarded? Let the history of that gallant people answer this question. How often has the injustice of their cause been concealed from their own view by the dazzling brilliancy of some grand and striking exploit? Glory is their passion, and their great emperor, who knew them best, often acted upon this principle. To anticipate their enemy, and commence the war with some bold stroke, would be in perfect accordance with their character.

Every Senator, when he voted upon the appropriation, must have known, or at least might have known, all the information which was contained in the documents accompanying the President’s message.

It has been objected, that if the President desired this appropriation of three millions, he ought to have recommended it in his message. I protest against this principle. He acted wisely, discreetly, and with a becoming respect for Congress, to leave the whole question to their decision. This was especially proper, as we had not thought proper to adopt any measure in relation to the subject.

Suppose the President had, in his special message, recommended this appropriation, what would have been said, and justly said, upon the subject? Denunciations the most eloquent would have resounded against him throughout the whole country, from Georgia to Maine. It would have everywhere been proclaimed as an act of executive dictation. In our then existing relations with France, it would have been said, and said with much force, that such a recommendation from the executive might have had a tendency to exasperate her people, and produce war. Besides, I shall never consent to adopt the principle that we ought to take no measures to defend the country, without the recommendation of the executive. This would be to submit to that very dictation, against which, on other occasions, gentlemen themselves have so loudly protested. No, sir, I shall always assert the perfect right of Congress to act upon such subjects, independently of any executive recommendation.

This special message was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, in the House of Representatives, on the 26th February. On the next day they reported three resolutionsresolutions, one of which was, “that contingent preparation ought to be made, to meet any emergency growing out of our relations with France.” The session was rapidly drawing to a close. But a few days of it then remained. It would have been vain to act upon this resolution. It was a mere abstraction. Had it been adopted, it could have produced no effect; the money was wanted to place the country in a state of defence, and not a mere opinion that it ought to be granted. The chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, therefore, on the 28th February, had this resolution laid upon the table, and gave notice that he would move an amendment to the fortification bill, appropriating three millions of dollars, one million to the army, and two millions to the navy, to provide for the contingent defence of the country.

262It has been urged, that because the President, in his last annual message, has said that this contingent appropriation was inserted according to his views, that some blame attaches to him from the mode of its introduction. Without pretending to know the fact, I will venture the assertion, that he never requested any member, either of this or the other branch of the legislature, to make such a motion. He had taken his stand—he had left the whole subject to Congress. From this he never departed. If the chairman of any committee, or any other member of the Senate or the House, called upon him to know his views upon the subject, he no doubt communicated them freely and frankly. This is his nature. Surely no blame can attach to him for having expressed his opinion upon this subject to any member who might ask it. It has been the uniform course pursued on such occasions.

On the 2d of March, the House of Representatives, by a unanimous vote, resolved that, in their opinion, the treaty with France, of the 4th July, 1831, should be maintained, and its execution insisted on. This was no party vote. It was dictated by a common American feeling, which rose superior to party. After this solemn declaration of the House, made in the face of the world, how could it be supposed they would adjourn, without endeavoring to place the country in an attitude of defence? What, sir! The representatives of the people, with an overflowing treasury, to leave the country naked and exposed to hostile invasion, and to make no provision for our navy, after having declared unanimously that the treaty should be maintained! Who could have supposed it?

On the 3d of March, upon the motion of the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations (Mr. Cambreleng) and in pursuance of the notice which he had given on the 28th of February, this appropriation of three millions was annexed as an amendment to the fortification bill. The vote upon the question was 109 in the affirmative, and 77 in the negative. This vote, although not unanimous, like the former, was no party vote. The bill, thus amended, was brought to the Senate. Now, sir, let me ask, if this appropriation had proceeded from the House alone, without any message or any suggestion from the executive, would this not have been a legitimate source? Ought such an appropriation to be opposed in the Senate, because it had not received executive sanction? Have the Representatives of the people no right to originate a bill for the defence and security of their constituents and their country, without first consulting the will of the President? For one, I shall never submit to any such a slavish principle. It would make the Executive every thing, and Congress nothing.

Had the indemnity been absolutely rejected by the Chambers, the two nations would have been placed in a state of defiance towards each other. In such a condition it was the right—nay, more, it was the imperative duty of the House of Representatives to make contingent preparation for the worst. The urgency of the case was still more striking, because in ten or eleven of the States Representatives could not be elected until months after the adjournment, 263and, therefore, Congress could not have been assembled to meet any emergency which might occur.

But, sir, does it require a recommendation of the Executive, or a vote of the House of Representatives, to originate such an appropriation? Any individual Senator or member of the House may do it with the strictest propriety. Did the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Clayton) ask the approbation of the President, before he made the motion at the last session, which does him so much honor, to increase the appropriation for fortifications half a million? How did the amendments proposed by the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Webster) to the fortification bill of the last session originate? I presume from the Committee of Finance, of which he was the chairman. No doubt he conferred with the head of the proper Executive Department, according to the custom in such cases; but still these appropriations of more than four hundred thousand dollars had their origin in that committee. It was a proper, a legitimate source. Is then the ancient practice to be changed, and must it become a standing rule that we are to appropriate no money without the orders or the expressed wish of the Executive? I trust not.

The form of this appropriation has been objected to. I shall read it.

“And be it further enacted, That the sum of three millions of dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be expended, in whole or in part, under the direction of the President of the United States, for the military and naval service, including fortifications and ordnance, and increase of the navy; Provided, such expenditures shall be rendered necessary, for the defence of the country, prior to the next meeting of Congress.”

It has been urged that to grant money in such general terms would have been a violation of the Constitution. I do not understand that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Webster), at the present session, has distinctly placed it upon this ground. Other Senators have done so in the strongest terms. Is there any thing in the Constitution which touches the question? It simply declares that “no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” Whether these appropriations shall be general or specific, is left entirely, as it ought to have been, to the discretion of Congress. I admit that, ex vi termini, an appropriation of money must have a reference to some object. But whether you refer to a class, or to an individual, to the genus or to the species, your appropriation is equally constitutional. The degree of specification necessary to make the law valid never can become a constitutional question. The terms of the instrument are as broad and as general as the English language can make them. In this particular, as in almost every other, the framers of the Constitution have manifested their wisdom and their foresight. Cases may occur and have occurred in the history of this Government, demanding the strictest secrecy; cases in which to specify, would be to defeat the very object of the appropriation. A remarkable example of this kind occurs in the administration of Mr. Jefferson, to which I shall presently advert.

264There are other cases in which from the very nature of things you cannot specify the objects of an appropriation without the gift of prophecy. I take the present to be a clear case of this description. The appropriation was contingent; it was to be for the defence of the country. How then could it have been specific? How could you foresee when, or where, or how the attack of France would be made? Without this foreknowledge, you could not designate when, or where, or how it would become necessary to use the money. This must depend upon France, not upon ourselves. She might be disposed to confine the contest merely to a naval war. In that event it would become necessary to apply the whole sum to secure us against naval attacks. She might threaten to invade Louisiana or any other portion of the Union. The money would then be required to call out the militia, and to march them and the regular army to that point. Every thing must depend upon the movements of the enemy. It might become necessary, in order most effectually to resist the contemplated attack, to construct steam frigates or steam batteries, or it might be deemed more proper to increase your ordinary navy and complete and arm your fortifications. In a country where Congress cannot be always in session, you must in times of danger, grant some discretionary powers to the Executive. This should always be avoided when it is possible, consistently with the safety of the country. But it was wise, it was prudent in the framers of the Constitution, in order to meet such cases, to declare in general terms that “no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” Not specific appropriations. The terms are general and unrestricted. If the amendment had appropriated one million to fortifications, the second million to the increase of the navy, and the third to the purchase of ordnance and arms, it might have been found that a great deal too much had been appropriated to one object, and a great deal too little to another.

As a matter of expediency, as a means of limiting the discretion of executive officers, I am decidedly friendly to specific appropriations, whenever they can be made. I so declared in the debate at the last session. I then expressed a wish that this appropriation had been more specific; but upon reflection, I do not see how it could have been made much more so, unless we had possessed the gift of prophecy. But the Constitution has nothing to do with the question.

After all, I attached more value to specific appropriations before I had examined this subject, than I do at the present moment. Still I admit their importance. The clause which immediately follows in the Constitution, is the true touchstone of responsibility. Although the appropriation may be general; yet “a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.” No matter in what language public money may be granted to the Executive, in its expenditure, he is but the mere trustee of the American people, and he must produce to them his vouchers for every cent entrusted to his care. This constitutional provision holds him to a strict responsibility, to a responsibility 265much more severe than if Congress had been required in all cases to make specific appropriations.

How Senators can create a dictator, and give him unlimited power over the purse and the sword out of such an appropriation, I am at a loss to conceive. It is a flight of imagination beyond my reach. What, sir, to appropriate three millions for the military and naval defence of the country in case it should become necessary during the recess of Congress, and at its next meeting to compel the President to account for the whole sum he may have expended; is this to create a dictator? Is this to surrender our liberties into the hands of one man? And yet gentlemen have contended for this proposition.

What has been the practice of the Government in regard to this subject? During the period of our first two Presidents, appropriations were made in the most general terms. No one then imagined that this was a violation of the Constitution. When Mr. Jefferson came into power, this practice was changed. In his message to Congress, of December 8th, 1801, he says: “In our care too of the public contributions entrusted to our discretion, it would be prudent to multiply barriers against their dissipation, by appropriating specific sums to every specific purpose susceptible of definition.” Susceptible of definition. Here is the rule, and here is the exception. He treats the subject not as a constitutional question, but as one of mere expediency. In little more than two short years after this recommendation, Mr. Jefferson found it was necessary to obtain an appropriation from Congress in the most general terms. To have made it specific, would necessarily have defeated its very object. Secrecy was necessary to success. Accordingly on the 26th February, 1803, Congress made the most extraordinary appropriation in our annals. They granted to the President the sum of two millions of dollars, “for the purpose of defraying any extraordinary expenses which may be incurred in the intercourse between the United States and foreign nations.” Here, sir, was a grant almost without any limit. It was co-extensive with the whole world. Every nation on the face of the earth was within the sphere of its operation. The President might have used this money to subsidize foreign nations to destroy our liberties. That he was utterly incapable of such conduct it is scarcely necessary to observe. I do not know that I should have voted for such an unlimited grant. Still, however, there was a responsibility to be found in his obligation under the Constitution to account for its expenditure. Mr. Jefferson never used any part of this appropriation. It had been intended for the purchase of the sovereignty of New Orleans and of other possessions in that quarter; but our treaty with France of the 30th April, 1803, by which Louisiana was ceded to us, rendered it unnecessary for him to draw any part of this money from the Treasury, under the act of Congress, by which it had been granted.

Before the close of Mr. Jefferson’s second term, it was found that specific appropriations in the extent to which they had been carried, had become inconvenient. Congress often granted too much for one object, and too little 266for another. This must necessarily be the case, because we cannot say beforehand precisely how much shall be required for any one purpose. On the 3d of March, 1809, an act was passed, which was approved by Mr. Jefferson, containing the following provision:

“Provided, nevertheless, That, during the recess of Congress, the President of the United States may, and he is hereby authorized, on the application of the Secretary of the proper department, and not otherwise, to direct, if in his opinion necessary for the public service, that a portion of the moneys appropriated for a particular branch of expenditure in that department, be applied to another branch of expenditure in the same department; in which case, a special account of the moneys thus transferred, and of their application, shall be laid before Congress during the first week of their next ensuing session.”

Is this act constitutional? If it be so, there is an end of the question. Has its constitutionality ever been doubted? It authorizes the President to take the money appropriated by Congress for one special object and apply it to another. The money destined for any one purpose by an appropriation bill, may be diverted from that purpose by the President, and be applied to any other purpose entirely different, with no limitation whatever upon his discretion, except that money to be expended by one of the Departments, either of War, or of the Navy, or of the Treasury, could not be transferred to another Department.

It is not my intention to cite all the precedents bearing upon this question. I shall merely advert to one other. On the 10th of March, 1812, Congress appropriated five hundred thousand dollars “for the purpose of fortifying and defending the maritime frontier of the United States.” This was in anticipation of the late war with Great Britain, and is as general in its terms, and leaves as much to executive discretion, as the proposed appropriation of three millions.

I trust, then, that I have established the positions that this appropriation originated from a legitimate source—was necessary for the defence and honor of the country, and violated no provision of the constitution. If so, it ought to have received the approbation of the Senate.

When the fortification bill came back to the Senate, with this appropriation attached to it by the House, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Webster), instantly moved that it should be rejected. I feel no disposition to make any harsh observations in relation to that gentleman. I think, however, that his remark, that if the enemy had been thundering at the gates of the capitol, he would have moved to reject the appropriation, was a most unfortunate one for himself. I consider it nothing more than a bold figure of speech. I feel the most perfect confidence that the gentleman is now willing to vote all the money which may be necessary for the defence of the country.

Of the gentleman’s sincerity in opposing this appropriation, I did not then, nor do I now entertain a doubt. He was ardent and impassioned in his manner, and was evidently in a state of highly excited feeling. Probably strong political prejudices may have influenced his judgment without his 267knowledge. He thought that a high constitutional question was involved in the amendment, and acted accordingly.

When the bill returned again to the Senate, after we had rejected, and the House had insisted upon their amendment, the Senator immediately moved that we should adhere to our rejection. I well recollect, sir, that you (Mr. King, of Alabama, was in the chair), remarked at the time, that this was a harsh motion, and should it prevail, would be well calculated to exasperate the feelings of the House, and to defeat the bill. You then observed that the proper motion would be to insist upon our rejection, and ask a conference; and that the motion to adhere ought not to be resorted to until all gentler measures had failed.

The Senator now claims the merit, and is anxious to sustain the responsibility, of having moved to reject this appropriation. He also asks, in mercy, that when the expunging process shall commence, his vote, upon this occasion, may be spared from its operation.

For the sake of my country, and in undisguised sincerity of purpose, I declare, for the sake of the gentleman, I am rejoiced that the responsibility which he covets will, probably, not be so dreadful as we had just reason to apprehend. Had France attacked us, or should she yet attack us, in our present defenceless condition; should our cities be exposed to pillage, or the blood of our citizens be shed, either upon the land or the ocean; should our national character be dishonored, tremendous, indeed, would be the responsibility of the gentleman. In that event, he need not beseech us to spare his vote from the process of expunging. You might as well attempt to expunge a sunbeam. That vote will live for ever in the memory of the American people.

It was the vote of the Senate which gave the mortal blow to the fortification bill. Had they passed this appropriation of three millions, that bill would now have been a law. Where it died, it is scarcely necessary to inquire. It was in mortal agony when the consultation of six political doctors was held upon it at midnight, in our conference chamber, and it probably breathed its last, on its way from that chamber to the House of Representatives, for want of a quorum in that body.

Its fate, in one respect, I hope may yet be of service to the country. It ought to admonish us, if possible, to do all our legislative business before midnight on the last day of the session. I never shall forget the night I sat side by side, in the House of Representatives, with the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Webster), until the morning had nearly dawned. The most important bills were continually returning from the Senate with amendments. It would have been in the power of any one member remaining in the House to have defeated any measure by merely asking for a division. This would have shown that no quorum was present. The members who still remained were worn down and exhausted, and were thus rendered incapable of attending to their duties. It was legislation without deliberation. I trust that this evil may be now corrected. Should it not, I do not know that, at the conclusion 268of a Congress, my conscience would be so tender as to prevent me from voting, as I have done heretofore, after midnight on the third of March.

I have one other point to discuss. I shall now proceed to present to the Senate the state of our relations with France, at the present moment, for the purpose of proving that we ought to adopt the resolutions of the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Benton), and grant all appropriations necessary for the defence of the country. For this purpose, we must again return to Paris. The President’s annual message of December, 1834, arrived in that city on the 8th of January—a day propitious in our annals. The attack upon the British troops on the night of the 23d of December did not surprise them more than this message did the French ministers. After the most patient endurance of wrongs for so many years, they seemed to be astounded that the President should have asserted our rights in such a bold and manly manner. That message, sir, will produce the payment of the indemnity. What effect had it upon the character of our country abroad? Let Mr. Livingston answer this question. In writing to the Secretary of State, on the 11th January, 1835, he says: “It has certainly raised us in the estimation of other powers, if I may judge from the demeanor of their representatives here; and my opinion is, that as soon as the first excitement subsides, it will operate favorably on the councils of France.” There was not an American in Paris, on that day, who, upon the perusal of this message, did not feel the flush of honest pride of country mantling in his countenance.

On the 22d of November previous, Mr. Livingston was convinced that the king was sincere in his intention of urging the execution of the treaty, and then had no doubt of the sincerity of his cabinet. The Chambers assembled on the 1st of December; and after an arduous struggle for two days against the opposition, victory perched upon the banner of the ministers. They were thus securely seated in their places. On the 6th of December Mr. Livingston again writes, that “The conversations I have had with the king and all the ministers convince me that now they are perfectly in earnest, and united on the question of the treaty, and that it will be urged with zeal and ability.” In a few short days, however, a change came over their spirit. On the 22d December Mr. Livingston uses the following language in writing to the Department of State: “My last despatch (6th December) was written immediately after the vote of the Chamber of Deputies had, as it was thought, secured a majority to the administration; and it naturally excited hopes which that supposition was calculated to inspire. I soon found, however, both from the tone of the administration press and from the language of the king and all the ministers with whom I conferred on the subject, that they were not willing to put their popularity to the test on our question; it will not be made one on the determination of which the ministers are willing to risk their portfolios. The very next day, after the debate, the ministerial gazette (Des Debats) declared that, satisfied with the approbation the Chamber had given to their system, it was at perfect liberty to exercise its discretion as to particular measures which do not form an essential part of that system; and 269the communications I subsequently had with the king and the ministers confirmed me in the opinion that the law for executing our convention was to be considered as one of those free questions. I combated this opinion, and asked whether the faithful observance of treaties was not an essential part of their system; and, if so, whether it did not come within their rule.”

The observance of treaties was not an essential part of their system! Victorious and securely fixed, the ministers would not risk their places in attempting to obtain from the Chambers the appropriation required to carry our treaty into execution. It would not be made a cabinet question. It was evident they had determined to pursue the same course of delay and procrastination which they had previously pursued. But the message arrived, and it roused them from their apathy. All doubts which had existed upon the subject of making the payment of our indemnity a cabinet question at once vanished. We have never heard of any such since; and it was not until some months after that the French ministers thought of annexing any condition to this payment.

On the 13th of January, Mr. Livingston had a conference with the Count de Rigny. He then explained to him the nature of a message from our President to Congress. He compared it to a family council under the French law, and showed that it was a mere communication from one branch of our Government to another, with which a foreign nation had no right to interfere, and at which they ought not to take offence. They parted on friendly terms, and again met on the same terms in the evening, at the Austrian Ambassador’s. Mr. Livingston was, therefore, much astonished when, about ten o’clock at night of the same day, he received a note from the count, informing him that Mr. Serrurier, the French minister at Washington, had been recalled, and that his passports were at his service. This seems to have been a sudden determination of the French cabinet.

Now, sir, upon the presumption that France had been insulted by the message, this was the proper mode of resenting the insult. Promptly to suspend all diplomatic intercourse with the nation who had menaced her or questioned her honor, was a mode of redress worthy of her high and chivalrous character. The next impulse of wounded pride would be promptly to pay the debt which she owed, and release herself from every pecuniary obligation to the nation which had done her this wrong. These were the first determinations of the king’s ministers.

France has since been placed before the world, by her rulers, in the most false position ever occupied by a brave and gallant nation. She believes herself to be insulted, and what is the consequence? She refuses to pay a debt now admitted to be just by all the branches of her government. Her wounded feelings are estimated by dollars and cents, and she withholds twenty-five millions of francs, due to a foreign nation, to soothe her injured pride. How are the mighty fallen! Truly it may be said, the days of chivalry are gone. Have the pride and the genius of Napoleon left no traces of themselves under the constitutional monarchy? In private life, if you are insulted by an individual to whom you are indebted, what is the first impulse 270of a man of honor? To owe no pecuniary obligation to the man who has wounded your feelings—to pay him the debt instantly, and to demand reparation for the insult, or at the least, to hold no friendly communication with him afterwards.

This course the king’s ministers had, at first, determined to pursue. The reason why they abandoned it, I shall endeavor to explain hereafter.

Mr. Livingston, in his letter to Mr. Forsyth of the 14th January, 1835, says: “The law, it is said, will be presented to-day, and I have very little doubt that it will pass. The ministerial phalanx, reinforced by those of the opposition (and they are not a few), who will not take the responsibility of involving the country in the difficulties which they now see must ensue, will be sufficient to carry the vote.”

Did Mr. Livingston intend to say France would be terrified into this measure? By no means. But, in the intercourse between independent States, there is a point at which diplomacy must end, and when a nation must either abandon her rights, or determine to assert them by the sword, or by such strong and decided measures as may eventually lead to hostilities. When this point is reached, it becomes a serious and alarming crisis for those to whom, on earth, the destiny of nations is entrusted. When the one alternative is war, either immediate or prospective, with all the miseries which follow in its train, and the other the payment of a just debt to an ancient ally and firm friend, who could doubt what must be the decision? Such was the position in which France stood toward the United States. Not only justice, but policy required the payment of the debt. In the event of war, or, of a non-intercourse between the two nations, her wine-growers, her producers and manufacturers of silk, and all her other manufacturing interests, especially those of her southern provinces, would be vitally injured. The payment of five millions of dollars would be but a drop in the ocean, compared with the extent of their sufferings. In France, they then believed that the time for diplomacy—the time for procrastination had ended. The President’s message had opened their eyes to the importance of the subject. It was under this impression that Mr. Livingston predicted that the bill would pass the Chambers. That it would have done so without any condition, had Congress responded to the President’s message, I do not say, by authorizing reprisals, but by manifesting a decided resolution to insist upon the execution of the treaty, will, I think, appear abundantly evident hereafter.

The French ministry having manifested their sensibility to the supposed insult, by recalling Mr. Serrurier, proceeded immediately to present the bill for the execution of the treaty to the Chambers. In presenting it on the 15th January, Mr. Humann, the minister of finance, addressed the Chamber. His speech contains the views then entertained by the French cabinet. I shall read an extract from it. He says:

“General Jackson has been in error respecting the extent of the faculties conferred upon us, by the constitution of the State; but if he has been mistaken as to the laws of our country, we will not fall into the same error with 271regard to the institutions of the United States. Now, the spirit and letter of those institutions authorize us to regard the document above named [the message], as the expression of an opinion merely personal, so long as that opinion has not received the sanction of the other two branches of the American Government. The message is a Government act, which is still incomplete, and should not lead to any of these determinations, which France is in the habit of taking in reply to a threat or insult.”

The French ministry, at that time, considered the President’s message, merely his personal act, until it should receive the sanction of Congress. They, then, had not dreamt of requiring an explanation of it, as the only condition on which they would pay the money. This was an after thought. The bill presented by Mr. Humann merely prescribed that the payment should not be made, “until it shall have been ascertained that the Government of the United States has done nothing to injure the interests of France.” This bill was immediately referred to a committee, of which Mr. Dumon was the chairman. On the 28th of March, he reported it to the Chamber, with a provision, that the money should not be paid, if the Government of the United States shall have done anything “contrary to the dignities and the interests of France.” Still we hear nothing of an explanation of the message being made a condition of the payment of the money. The clauses in the bill to which I have adverted were evidently inserted to meet the contingency of reprisals having been sanctioned by Congress.

The debate upon the bill in the Chamber of Deputies commenced on the 9th of April and terminated on the 18th. On that day General Valazé proposed his amendment declaring that “the payments in execution of the present law cannot be made until the French government shall have received satisfactory explanations with regard to the message of the President of the United States, dated the 2d December, 1834.”

The Duke de Broglie, the minister of foreign affairs, accepted this amendment. I shall read his remarks on this occasion. He says: “The intention of the government has always been conformable with the desire expressed by the author of the amendment which is now before the Chambers (great agitation), the government has always meant that diplomatic relations should not be renewed with the Government of the United States until it had received satisfactory explanations. The government, therefore, does not repulse the amendment itself.” After this, on the same day, the bill passed the Chamber by a vote of 289 to 137.

Well might the Chamber be agitated at such an annunciation from the minister of foreign affairs. Why this sudden change in the policy of the French government? The answer is plain. Congress had adjourned on the 4th of March, without manifesting by their actions any disposition to make the fulfilment of the treaty a serious question. Whilst our Treasury was overflowing, they had refused to make any provision for the defence of the country. They had left the whole coast of the United States from Maine to Georgia in a defenceless condition. The effect upon the French Chamber 272and the French people was such as might have been anticipated. To prove this, I shall read an extract from a speech delivered by Mr. Bignon, one of the Deputies, on the 10th April. I select this from many others, because it contains nothing which can be offensive to any Senator. It will be recollected that Mr. Bignon is the gentleman who had been more instrumental in defeating the bill at the previous session than any other member.

“President Jackson’s message has astonished them (the Americans) as well as us; they have seen themselves thrown by it into a very hazardous situation. What have they done? They are too circumspect and clear-headed to express, by an official determination, their disapproval of an act which, in reality, has not received their assent. Some of them, for instance Mr. Adams, in the House of Representatives, may indeed, from a politic patriotism, have even eulogized the President’s energy, and obtained from the Chamber the expression that the treaty of 1831 must be complied with; but at a preceding sitting the same member took pains to declare that he was not the defender of a system of war; he proclaimed aloud that the resolution adopted by the Senate was an expedient suggested by prudence, and he thought the House of Representatives should pursue the same course. Gentlemen, the American legislature had to resort to expedients to get out of the embarrassing dilemma in which the President’s message had placed them; and they acted wisely.”

From the conduct of Congress, the French Chambers were under the impression that the people of the United States would not adopt any energetic measures to compel the fulfilment of the treaty. They had no idea that the nation would sustain the President in his efforts. They had reason to believe that he was almost left alone. They appear ever since to have acted under this delusion. According to the impression of Mr. Bignon, the nation was astounded at President Jackson’s message. This is the true reason why the ministry accepted the amendment requiring President Jackson to make an explanation.

The best mode of obtaining justice from the powerful as well as from the weak—the best mode of elevating this nation to the lofty position she is destined to occupy among the nations of the earth—the best mode of preventing war and preserving peace, is to stand up firmly for our rights. The assertion of these rights, not by threats, but boldly, manfully, and frankly, is the surest method of obtaining justice and respect from other nations.

At so early a day as the 29th of January, Mr. Livingston had addressed a note to the Duke de Broglie, distinctly disavowing any intention on the part of the President, by his message, to intimidate France, or to charge the French government with bad faith. On the 25th of April, in another letter to the duke, he communicated to him the President’s official approbation of his former note. In this last letter, he reiterates his explanations, and assures the duke that, whilst the President intended to use no menace, nor to charge any breach of faith against the king’s government, he never could and never would make any explanation of his message on the demand of a foreign government. This letter would, of itself, be sufficient to give its author a high 273rank not only among the diplomatists, but the statesmen of his country. The sentiments it contains were unanimously approved by the American people. Although it was received by the duke before the bill had been acted upon by the Chamber of Peers, it produced no effect upon the French ministry. The bill was finally passed and obtained the sanction of the king in a form requiring the President to explain his message before the money could be paid.

This state of fact distinctly raises the important question, whether a President of the United States can be questioned by a foreign government for anything contained in a message to Congress. The principle that he cannot, has already been firmly established by the practice of our Government. Even in our intercourse with France, in former times, the question has been settled. This principle results from the very nature of our institutions. It must ever be maintained inviolate. Reverse it, and you destroy the independent existence of this Republic, so far as its intercourse with foreign nations is concerned.

The Constitution requires that the President of the United States “shall, from time to time, give to the Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” This information is intended not only for the use of Congress, but of the people. They are the source of all power, and from their impulse all legitimate legislation must proceed. Both Congress and the people must be informed of the state of our foreign relations by the executive. If the President cannot speak freely to them upon this subject; if he cannot give them all the information which may be necessary to enable them to act, except under the penalty of offending a foreign government, the Constitution of the United States, to this extent, becomes a dead letter. The maintenance of this principle is an indispensable condition of our existence, under the present form of Government.

If we are engaged in any controversy with a foreign nation, it is not only the right, but it is the imperative duty, of the President to communicate the facts to Congress, however much they may operate against that nation. Can we then, for a single moment, permit a foreign government to demand an apology from the President for performing one of his highest duties to the people of the United States?

Let us put an extreme case. Suppose the President, after giving a history of our wrongs to Congress, recommends not merely a resort to reprisals, but to war, against another nation. Shall this nation, which has inflicted upon us injury, be permitted to change her position, to cancel all our claims for justice, and to insist that we have become the aggressors, because a resort to arms has been recommended? I feel the most perfect confidence that not a single Senator will ever consent to yield this position to France or to any other nation. I need not labor this question. The subject has been placed in the clearest and strongest light by Mr. Livingston, in his letter to the Duke de Broglie of the 25th of April.

274If any possible exemption to the rule could be tolerated, surely this would not present the case. The Duke de Broglie himself, in his letter to Mr. Pageot, is constrained to admit that there is not a single offensive sentence respecting France in the message; but yet he complains of the general effect of the whole.

With a full knowledge, then, that the President could not, would not, dare not explain his message, on the demand of any foreign government, the Duke de Broglie addresses his famous letter to the chargé d’affaires at Washington. It bears date at Paris on the 17th June, 1835. Before I proceed to make any remarks upon this letter, I wish to bring its character distinctly into view of the Senate. It commences by declaring, in opposition to the principle that the President of the United States cannot be called upon by a foreign government to make explanations of a message to Congress, that, “by virtue of a clause inserted in the article first, by the Chamber of Deputies, the French government must defer making the payments agreed upon, until that of the United States shall have explained the true meaning and real purport of divers passages inserted by the President of the Union in his message at the opening of the last session of Congress, and at which all France, at the first aspect, was justly offended.”

It proceeds still further, and announces that, “the government, having discovered nothing in that clause at variance with its own sentiments, or the course it had intended to pursue, the project of law thus amended on the 18th April, by the Chamber of Deputies, was carried on the 27th, to the Chamber of Peers.”

The duke, after having thus distinctly stated that an explanation of the message was required as a condition of the payment of the money, and after presenting a historical sketch of the controversy, then controverts, at considerable length, the position which had been maintained by Mr. Livingston, that the President could not be questioned by a foreign government for anything contained in a message to Congress. He afterwards asserts, in the broadest terms, that the explanations which had been voluntarily made by Mr. Livingston, and sanctioned by the President, were not sufficient.

In suggesting what would satisfy France, he says, “we do not here contend about this or that phrase, this or that allegation, this or that expression; we contend about the intention itself, which has dictated that part of the message.” And again, speaking of Mr. Livingston’s letters of the 29th January and 25th April, he adds:

“You will easily conceive, sir, and the Cabinet of Washington will, we think, understand it also, that such phrases incidentally inserted in documents, the purport and tenor of which are purely polemical, surrounded, in some measure, by details of a controversy, which is besides not always free from bitterness, cannot dispel sufficiently the impression produced by the perusal of the message, nor strike the mind as would the same idea expressed in terms single, positive, direct, and unaccompanied by any recrimination concerning facts or incidents no longer of any importance. Such is the motive which, among 275many others, has placed the French government in the impossibility of acceding to the wish expressed by Mr. Livingston, towards the conclusion of his note of the 29th of April, by declaring (to the Chamber of Peers probably) that previous explanations given by the minister of the United States, and subsequently approved by the President, had satisfied it.”

After having thus announced the kind of explanation which would be expected, he states, that the French government “in pausing then for the present, and waiting for the fulfilment of those engagements to be claimed, (the engagements of the treaty) and expecting those to be claimed in terms consistent with the regard due to it, it is not afraid of being accused, nor France, which it represents, of being accused of appreciating national honor by any number of millions, which it could withhold as a compensation for any injury offered to it.” The letter concludes by authorizing Mr. Pageot to read it to Mr. Forsyth, and if he be desirous, to let him take a copy of it.

It is impossible to peruse this letter, able and ingenious as it is, without at once perceiving that it asks what the President can never grant, without violating the principle that France has no right to demand an explanation of his message.

On the 11th of September, Mr. Pageot, the French chargé d’affaires, called at the Department of State and read this despatch to Mr. Forsyth. The latter did not think proper to ask a copy of it; and for this he has been loudly condemned. In my judgment, his conduct was perfectly correct.

No objection can be made to this indirect mode of communication with the Government of the United States adopted by the duke. It is sanctioned by diplomatic usage. The rules, however, which govern it, are clearly deducible from its very nature. It is a mere diplomatic feeler thrown out to ascertain the views of another government. The duke himself justly observes that its object is “to avoid the irritation which might involuntarily rise from an exchange of contradictory notes in a direct controversy.”

Had Mr. Forsyth asked and received a copy of this despatch, he must have given it an answer. Respect for the source from which it proceeded would have demanded this at his hands. If this answer could have been nothing but a direct refusal to comply with the suggestions of the French government, then he was correct in not requesting leave to take a copy of it. Why was this the case? Because it would have added to the difficulties of the question, already sufficiently numerous, and would have involved him in a direct controversy, which it is the very object of this mode of communication to prevent. This is the reason why it was left by the despatch itself, within his own option whether to request a copy or not; and his refusal to make this request ought to have given no offence to the French government.

Now, sir, what answer could he have given to this communication, but a direct refusal? Had not the duke been fully apprised before he wrote this despatch, that it could receive no other answer? It required explanations as a condition of the payment of the money, which he had been informed the 276President could never make. On this ground, then, and for the very purpose of avoiding controversy, the conduct of Mr. Forsyth is correct.

But there is another reason to justify his conduct, which, I think, must carry conviction to every mind. The President proposed, in his annual message, voluntarily to declare, that he had never intended to menace France, or to impeach the faith of the French government. This he has since done in the strongest terms. As offence was taken by the French government at the language of a former message, it was believed that such a declaration in a subsequent message would be, as it ought to be, entirely satisfactory to France. Had Mr. Forsyth taken a copy of this despatch, and placed it among the archives of the Government, how could the President have made, consistently with his principles, the disclaimer which he has done? A demand for an explanation would thus have been interposed by a foreign government, which would have compelled him to remain silent. The refusal of Mr. Forsyth to ask a copy of the despatch, left the controversy in its old condition; and, so far as our government was concerned, left this letter from the Duke de Broglie to Mr. Pageot as if it never had been written. The President, therefore, remained at perfect liberty to say what he thought proper in his message.

If this letter had proposed any reasonable terms of reconciling our difficulties with France—if it had laid any foundation on which a rational hope might have rested that it would become the means of producing a result so desirable, it would have been the duty of Mr. Forsyth to request a copy. Upon much reflection, however, I must declare that I cannot imagine what good could have resulted from it in any contingency; and it might have done much evil. Had it prevented the President from speaking as he has done in his last message, concerning France, it might have involved the country in a much more serious misunderstanding with that power than existed at the present moment.

I should be glad to say no more of this despatch, if I could do so consistently with a sense of duty. Mr. Pageot did not rest satisfied with Mr. Forsyth’s omission to request a copy of it, as he ought to have done. He deemed it proper to attempt to force that upon him which the despatch itself had left entirely to his own discretion. Accordingly, on the 1st of December last, he enclosed him a copy. On the third, Mr. Forsyth returned it with a polite refusal. On the fifth, Mr. Pageot again addressed Mr. Forsyth, and avowed that his intention in communicating the document, “was to make known the real disposition of my government to the President of the United States, and through him to Congress and the American people.” Thus it is manifest that his purpose was to make the President the instrument by which he might appeal to the American people against the American Government. After he had failed in this effort, what is his next resort? He publishes this despatch to the people of the United States through the medium of our public journals. I now hold in my hand the number of the Courier des Etats Unis of the 20th of January, a journal published in New York, which contains 277the original despatch in the French language. In a subsequent number of the same journal, of the 24th January, there is an editorial article on the subject of the President’s special message to Congress, and of this despatch, of a part of which I shall give my own translation. It is as follows:

“Our last number contained the despatch of M. the Duke de Broglie to the chargé d’affaires of France at Washington, concerning which the Senate had demanded such explanations as were in the power of the executive. On the same day, the late message of the President of the United States, which had been expected with so much impatience and anxiety, arrived at New York. To this document are annexed many letters of the Duke de Broglie, of Mr. Forsyth, and of Mr. Pageot, which will be read with great interest. We give a simple analysis of the least important, and an exact copy of those which have been written originally in French.”

“The public attention was first occupied with the letter of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, which was known here some hours before the message of the President of the United States; and if some journals of the Government have found this publication unseasonable, made by the legation of France according to the orders which it had received, nobody, at least, has been able to deny the talent, the moderation, and the force of reasoning which have presided at its preparation.”

By whom was the legation of France ordered to publish this despatch? Who alone had the power of issuing such an order? The French government. Against this positive language, I can still scarcely believe that the Duke de Broglie has given an order so highly reprehensible.

The publication of this despatch was an outrage upon all diplomatic usage. It ought to have been intended as the harbinger of peace, and not of renewed controversy. From its very nature it was secret and confidential. If not received, it ought to have been as if it never had existed. Upon any other principle, it would aggravate the controversy which such communications are always intended to prevent. It has now been diverted from its natural purpose by the French legation, and has been made the subject of an appeal by France to the American people against their own Government. It has thus greatly increased the difficulties between the two countries. It has proclaimed to the world that France requires from the President of the United States, an apology of his message as an indispensable condition of the execution of our treaty. It has, therefore, rendered it much more difficult for her to retract.

The true meaning of this despatch is now rendered manifest to the most sceptical. The Duke de Broglie, in his interview with Mr. Barton, on the 12th October last, has placed his own construction upon it. The apology which he then required from the President contains his own commentary upon this despatch. I need not read the history of that interview to the Senate, to prove that I am correct in this assertion. It must be fresh in the recollection of every Senator.

Considered as an appeal to the American people against their own Government, 278the publication of this despatch deserves still more serious consideration. Foreign influence, in all ages, has been the bane of republics. It has destroyed nearly all of them which have ever existed. We ought to resist its approaches on every occasion. In the very infancy of our existence as a nation, a similar attempt was made by France. It was then repulsed as became a nation of freemen. The present attempt will have the same effect on the American people. It will render them still more firm and still more united in the cause of their country.

Of Mr. Barton’s recall, I need say but little. It was the direct consequence of the refusal of France to execute the treaty, without an apology from the President of his message.

Diplomatic relations between the two countries had been first interrupted by France. On this subject, hear what the Count de Rigny said in his exposé read to the Chamber of Peers, on the 27th April last, on presenting the bill for the execution of our treaty. I give my own translation:

“You know the measure which the government of the king adopted at the very instant when the message, presented by the President of the Union, at the opening of the last Congress, arrived in Europe. You know that since that time, a similar measure had been adopted by President Jackson himself. The two ministers, accredited near the two governments, are reciprocally recalled; the effect of this double recall is at this moment, if not to interrupt, in all respects, the diplomatic communications between the two States, at least to interrupt them in what regards the treaty of the 4th July. If these relations ought to be renewed, and we doubt not that they ought, it is not for us hereafter to take the initiative.”

On the 5th of June, the President had officially sanctioned the explanations which had been made to the French government by Mr. Livingston, in his letter of the 25th of April, as he had previously sanctioned those which had been made by the same gentleman, in his note of the 29th of January. These were considered by the President, amply sufficient to satisfy the susceptible feelings of France. In order to give them full time to produce their effect, and to afford the French ministry an ample opportunity for reflection, he delayed sending any orders to demand the money secured by the treaty until the middle of December. On the 14th of that month, Mr. Barton was instructed to call upon the Duke de Broglie, and request to be informed what were the intentions of the French government, in relation to the payment of the money secured by the treaty. He expected these instructions on the 20th of October. The special message has communicated to us the result. “We will pay the money,” says the Duke de Broglie, “when the Government of the United States is ready on its part, to declare to us, by addressing its claim to us officially in writing, that it regrets the misunderstanding which has arisen between the two countries; that this misunderstanding is founded on a mistake; that it never entered into its intention to call in question the good faith of the French government, nor to take a menacing attitude towards France;” and he adds, “if the Government of the United States does 279not give this assurance, we shall be obliged to think that this misunderstanding is not the result of an error.”

Is there any American so utterly lost to those generous feelings which love of country should inspire, as to purchase five millions with the loss of national honor? Who, for these or any number of millions, would see the venerable man, now at the head of our Government, bowing at the footstool of the throne of Louis Philippe, and like a child, prepared to say its lesson, repeating this degrading apology? First, perish the five millions,—perish a thousand times the amount. The man whose bosom has been so often bared in the defence of his country will never submit to such degrading terms. His motto has always been, death before dishonor.

Why, then, it may be asked, have I expressed a hope, a belief, that this unfortunate controversy will be amicably terminated when the two nations are now directly at issue? I will tell you why. This has been called a mere question of etiquette; and such it is, so far as France is concerned. She has already received every explanation which the most jealous susceptibility ought to demand. These have been voluntarily tendered to her.

Since the date of the Duke de Broglie’s letter to Mr. Pageot of the 17th June, we have received from the President of the United States his general message at the commencement of the session, and his special message on French affairs. Both these documents disclaim, in the strongest terms, any intention to menace France, or to impute bad faith to the French government by the message of December, 1834. Viewing the subject in this light; considering that at the interview with Mr. Barton, the duke could not have anticipated what would be the tone of these documents, I now entertain a strong hope that the French government have already reconsidered their determination. If a mediation has been proposed and accepted, I cannot entertain a doubt as to what will be the opinion of the mediator. He ought to say to France, you have already received all the explanations, and these have been voluntarily accorded, which the United States can make without national degradation. With these you ought to be satisfied. With you, it is a mere question of etiquette. All the disclaimers which you ought to desire have already been made by the President of the United States. The only question with you now is not one of substance, but merely whether these explanations are in proper form. But in regard to the United States, the question is far different. What is with you mere etiquette, is a question of life and death to them. Let the President of the United States make the apology which you have dictated,—let him once admit the right of a foreign government to question his messages to Congress, and to demand explanations of any language at which they may choose to take offence, and their independent existence as a Government, to that extent, is virtually destroyed.

We must remember that France may yield with honor; we never can, without disgrace. Will she yield? That is the question. I confess I should have entertained a stronger belief that she would, had she not published the duke’s letter to Mr. Pageot as an appeal to the American people. She must 280still believe that the people of this country are divided in opinion in regard to the firm maintenance of their rights. In this she will find herself entirely mistaken. But should Congress, at the present session, refuse to sustain the President by adopting measures of defence; should the precedent of the last session be followed for the present year, then I shall entertain the most gloomy forebodings. The Father of his country has informed us that the best mode of preserving peace is to be prepared for war. I firmly believe, therefore, that a unanimous vote of the Senate in favor of the resolutions now before them, to follow to Europe the acceptance of the mediation, would, almost to a certainty, render it successful. It would be an act of the soundest policy as well as of the highest patriotism. It would prove, not that we intend to menace France, because such an attempt would be ridiculous; but that the American people are unanimous in the assertion of their rights, and have resolved to prepare for the worst. A French fleet is now hovering upon our coasts; and shall we sit still, with an overflowing Treasury, and leave our country defenceless? This will never be said with truth of the American Congress.

If war should come, which God forbid,—if France should still persist in her effort to degrade the American people in the person of their Chief Magistrate,—we may appeal to Heaven for the justice of our cause, and look forward with confidence to victory from that Being in whose hands is the destiny of nations.

Previous to the delivery of this speech, the President had, on the 15th of January, recommended to Congress a partial non-intercourse with France. But in a short time the government of Great Britain made an offer of mediation, which was accepted, and the whole difficulty with France was amicably adjusted.

REMOVAL OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS—BENTON’S “EXPUNGING” RESOLUTION.

Among the exciting topics of this period, there was no ground on which the Whigs attacked the administration of General Jackson with greater severity than that which related to his removal of executive officers. In the remarkable protest, which he sent to the Senate in 1834, against the censure which that body had passed upon his executive acts, and especially his removal of one Secretary of the Treasury who would not, and the appointment of another who would, remove the public deposits from the Bank of the United States, he had claimed a general executive power of supervision and control over all executive officers. He had made many other removals from office, which were complained of as dictated by purely political motives; and in the session of 1834–5, a bill was introduced into the Senate, one of the objects of which was to require the President, when making a nomination to fill a vacancy occasioned by the removal of any officer, to state the fact of such removal, and to render reasons for it. On this bill, Mr. Buchanan, on the 17th of February, 1835, made the following speech, which is of value now, because it relates to a topic that has not yet ceased to be a matter of controversy:

Mr. President: It is with extreme diffidence and reluctance that I rise to address you on the present occasion. It was my intention to suffer this bill to pass, contenting myself with a simple vote in the negative. This course I should have pursued, had the constitutional question been fully discussed by any gentleman on our side of the Senate. As this has not been done, I feel it to be a duty which I owe to those who sent me here, as well as to myself, to express my opinion on the subject, and the reasons on which that opinion is founded.

282The present bill presents a most important question concerning our fundamental institutions. It attacks a construction of the Constitution of the United States which has been considered settled for almost half a century. Has the President, under the Constitution, the power of removing executive officers? If any question can ever be put at rest in this country, this, emphatically, ought to be considered that one. It was solemnly settled in 1789 by the first Congress of the United States. Of whom was that Congress composed? Of the men who had sustained the toils and dangers of the revolutionary war—of the men who sat in the convention which framed the Constitution, and who passed from that convention into the first Congress. These men, who laid the foundations of our Republic broad and deep, most solemnly and deliberately decided, that to the President, and to him alone, belonged the power of removal. This was not at a moment when the country was convulsed by party spirit. Very far from it. The Fathers of the Republic were then occupied in putting the Government in motion, and in establishing such principles as might preserve the liberties and promote the best interests of the American people for ages. In what condition are we, at the present moment, to rejudge the judgment of those men and reverse their solemn decision? Is not party spirit raging throughout the land? Are there not high party feelings in this body? Are we in a condition calmly and deliberately, without prejudice and without passion, to review and to condemn their judgment?

Why, sir, even if there were no authority in the Constitution for the power of removal, the decision of this body, at this time, would have but little influence among the people. They would compare the calmness—the self-possession—the freedom from political excitement of the sages who established the precedent, with the party violence and the high political feeling of the Senate at the present day; and the weight of authority would be all against us.

The debate in the first Congress was very long and very able. Every argument which patriotism and ingenuity could suggest was exhausted. The question was at length decided in the House of Representatives on the 22d June, 1789. On the yeas and nays, thirty voted in affirmance of the President’s power of removal, and eighteen against it;—a large majority, considering the comparatively small number of which the House was then composed.

The question arose on the bill to establish the Department of Foreign Affairs. It contained a clause declaring the Secretary of State “to be removable from office by the President of the United States.” From this clause it might have been inferred that the power of removal was intended to be conferred upon the President by Congress, and not acknowledged to exist in him under the Constitution. To remove every difficulty,—to place doubt at defiance in all future time, the words “to be removable from office by the President of the United States” were stricken from the bill, and this right was expressly acknowledged to exist independently of all legislation. By the second section of the bill, which became a law on the 27th July, 1789, 283it is declared that “the Chief Clerk in the Department of Foreign Affairs,Affairs, whenever the principal officer shall be removed from office by the President of the United States, or in any other case of vacancy, shall, during such vacancy, have the charge and custody of all records, books, and papers, appertaining to the said Department.” Here then is a clear, strong, distinct recognition by the House of Representatives of the President’s power of removal, not by virtue of law, but under the Constitution. This phraseology was carefully adopted for the purpose of putting this very question at rest forever, so far as Congress could effect this purpose.

The bill, having passed the House of Representatives, was sent to the Senate for their concurrence. The power of removal was there solemnly considered. This was the very body which, according to the doctrine of gentlemen, has a right to control this power; and yet they affirmed the principle that it was vested in the President, and in him alone. It is true that the question was determined by the casting vote of Mr. Adams,—then the Vice-President: but the act was approved by General Washington, and the power has ever since been exercised without dispute by him and his successors in office, until after the election of the present President. Washington, the elder Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and the younger Adams removed whom they pleased from office; but after the accession of Jackson, the existence of this power is denied. We are now required to believe that all which former Presidents have done was wrong;—that the first Congress were entirely mistaken in their construction of the Constitution:—and that the President does not possess the power of removal except with the concurrence of the Senate.

If ever a question has occurred in the history of any country which ought to be considered settled, this is that one. A solemn decision at first, adopted in practice afterwards by all branches of the Government, for five and forty years, makes the precedent one of almost irresistible force.

What then have we a right to expect on our side of the House from the opposition? Not merely that they shall prove it to be a doubtful question, but they shall present a case so clear as to render it manifest that all which has been done has been without authority, and all the removals which have ever been made, have been in violation of the Constitution. The burden rests entirely upon the gentlemen, and a ponderous load they have to sustain.

But, sir, if the question were entirely new, if it never had been decided either by precedent or by practice, I think it may be made abundantly clear, that the strength of the argument is greatly on the side of those who maintain the power.

What is the nature of the Constitution of the United States? The powers which it devolves upon the Government, are divided into three distinct classes, the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial. To preserve the liberties of any country, it is necessary that these three branches of the government should be kept distinct and separate as far as possible. When they are all united in the same person—this is the very definition of 284despotism. As you approximate to this state of things, in the same proportion you advance towards arbitrary power. These are axioms which cannot—which will not be denied.

Doubtless for wise purposes, the framers of our Constitution have in a very few excepted cases, blended these powers together. The executive, by his veto, has a control over our legislation. The Senate, although a branch of the legislature, exercises judicial power in cases of impeachment. The President nominates, “and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,” appoints all officers, except those of an inferior nature, the appointment of which may be vested by Congress “in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.”

Now, sir, my position is, that when the Constitution of the United States, in a special case, has conferred upon the Senate, which is essentially a branch of the legislature, a participation in executive power, you cannot by construction extend this power beyond the plain terms of the grant. It is an exception from the general rule pervading the whole instrument. Appointment to office is in the strictest sense an executive power. But it is expressly declared that the assent of the Senate shall be necessary to the exercise of this power on the part of the President. The grant to the Senate is special. In this particular case, it is an abstraction from the general executive powers granted under the Constitution to the PresidentPresident. According to the maxim of the common law, expressio unius est exclusio alterius—it follows conclusively that what has not been given is withheld, and remains in that branch of the Government which is the appropriate depository of executive power. The exception proves the rule. And the grant of executive power to the Senate is confined to appointments to office, and to them alone. This necessarily excludes other executive powers. It cannot, therefore, be contended with any force, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Webster) has contended, that because the consent of the Senate is made necessary by the Constitution to appointments of officers,—that, therefore, by implication, it is necessary for their removal. Besides, these two things are very distinct in their nature, as I shall hereafter have occasion to demonstrate.

But to proceed with the argument. I shall contend that the sole power of removing executive officers is vested in the President by the Constitution. First, from a correct construction of the instrument itself; and second, even if that were doubtful, from the great danger resulting to the public interest from any other construction.

The Constitution declares in express language that “the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.” Under these general terms, I shall, once for all, disclaim the idea of attempting to derive any portion of the power of the Chief Magistrate from any other fountain than the Constitution itself. I therefore entirely repel the imputation, so far as I am concerned, which would invest him with executive powers derived from the prerogatives of the kings or emperors of the old world. Such arguments are entirely out of the question.

285The Constitution also declares that “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” These two clauses of the Constitution confer the executive power on the President, and define his duties. Is, then, the removal from office an executive power? If it be so, there is an end of the question; because the Constitution nowhere declares that the Senate, or any other human tribunal, shall participate in the exercise of this power. It will not be contended but that the power of removal exists, and must exist, somewhere. Where else can it exist but in the executive, on whom the Constitution imposes the obligation of taking care that the laws shall be faithfully executed? It will not be pretended that the power of removal is either of a legislative or judicial character. From its very nature, it belongs to the executive. In case he discovers that an officer is violating his trust—that instead of executing the laws, his conduct is in direct opposition to their requisition, is it not, strictly speaking, an executive power to arrest him in his career, by removing him from office? How could the President execute the trust confided to him, if he were destitute of this authority? If he possessed it not, he would be compelled to witness the executive officers violating the laws of Congress without the power of preventing it.

On this subject, it is impossible for me to advance anything new. It was exhausted by Mr. Madison, in the debate of 1789, in the House of Representatives. I am confident the Senate will indulge me whilst I read two extracts from his speeches on that occasion, delivered on the 16th and 17th June, 1789. The first was delivered on the 16th June, 1789, and is as follows:

“By a strict examination of the Constitution, on what appears to be its true principles, and considering the great departments of the Government in the relation they have to each other, I have my doubts whether we are not absolutely tied down to the construction declared in the bill. In the first section of the first article, it is said that all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States. In the second article, it is affirmed that the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. In the third article, it is declared that the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court; and in such inferior courts as Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish.

“I suppose it will be readily admitted, that so far as the Constitution has separated the powers of these great departments, it would be improper to combine them together; and so far as it has left any particular department in the entire possession of the powers incident to that department, I conceive we ought not to qualify them further than they are qualified by the Constitution. The legislative powers are vested in Congress, and are to be exercised by them uncontrolled by any other department, except the Constitution has qualified it otherwise. The Constitution has qualified the legislative power, by authorizing the President to object to any act it may pass, requiring, in this case, two-thirds of both Houses to concur in making a law; but still the absolute legislative power is vested in the Congress with this qualification alone.

286“The Constitution affirms, that the executive power shall be vested in the President. Are there exceptions to this proposition? Yes, there are. The Constitution says, that in appointing to office, the Senate shall be associated with the President, unless in case of inferior officers, when the law shall otherwise direct. Have we a right to extend this exception? I believe not. If the Constitution had invested all executive power in the President, I venture to assert that the Legislature has no right to diminish or modify his executive authority.”

Again:

“The doctrine, however, which seems to stand most in opposition to the principles I contend for, is, that the power to annul an appointment is, in the nature of things, incidental to the power which makes the appointment. I agree that if nothing more was said in the Constitution than that the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, should appoint to office, there would be great force in saying that the power of removal resulted by a natural implication from the power of appointing. But there is another part of the Constitution, no less explicit than the one on which the gentleman’s doctrine is founded; it is that part which declares that the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.

“The association of the Senate with the President in exercising that particular function, is an exception to this general rule, and exceptions to general rules, I conceive, are ever to be taken strictly. But there is another part of the Constitution which inclines, in my judgment, to favor the construction I put upon it; the President is required to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. If the duty to see the laws faithfully executed be required at the hands of the Executive Magistrate, it would seem that it was generally intended he should have that species of power which is necessary to accomplish that end. Now, if the officer, when once appointed, is not to depend upon the President for his official existence, but upon a distinct body, (for where there are two negatives required, either can prevent the removal,) I confess I do not see how the President can take care that the laws be faithfully executed. It is true, by a circuitous operation, he may obtain an impeachment, and even without this it is possible he may obtain the concurrence of the Senate for the purpose of displacing an officer; but would this give that species of control to the Executive Magistrate which seems to be required by the Constitution? I own, if my opinion was not contrary to that entertained by what I suppose to be the minority on this question, I should be doubtful of being mistaken, when I discovered how inconsistent that construction would make the Constitution with itself. I can hardly bring myself to imagine the wisdom of the convention who framed the Constitution contemplated such incongruity.”

But, sir, if doubts could arise on the language of the Constitution itself, then it would become proper, for the purpose of ascertaining the true meaning of the instrument, to resort to arguments ab inconvenienti. The framers of the Constitution never intended it to mean what would defeat the very 287purposes which it was intended to accomplish. I think I can prove that to deprive the President of the power of removal would be fatal to the best interests of the country.

And first, the Senate cannot always be in session. I thank Heaven for that. We must separate and attend to our ordinary business. It is necessary for a healthy political constitution that we should breathe the fresh and pure air of the country. The political excitement would rise too high if it were not cooled off in this manner. The American people never will consent, and never ought to consent, that our sessions shall become perpetual. The framers of the Constitution never intended that this should be the case. But once establish the principle that the Senate must consent to removals, as well as to appointments, and this consequence is inevitable.

A foreign minister in a remote part of the world is pursuing a course, dangerous to the best interests, and ruinous to the character of the country. He is disgracing us abroad, and endangering the public peace. He has been intrusted with an important negotiation, and is betraying his trust. He has become corrupt, or is entirely incompetent. This information arrives at Washington, three or four days after the adjournment of Congress on the 3d of March. What is to be done? Is the President to be entirely powerless until the succeeding December, when the Senate may meet again? Shall he be obliged to wait until the mischief is entirely consummated—until the country is ruined—before he can recall the corrupt or wicked minister? Or will any gentleman contend that upon every occasion, when a removal from office becomes necessary, he shall call the Senators from their homes throughout this widely extended republic? And yet, this is the inevitable consequence of the position contended for by gentlemen. Could the framers of the Constitution ever have intended such an absurdity? This argument was also adverted to by Mr. Madison.

But again, there are great numbers of disbursing officers scattered over the Union. Information is received during the recess of the Senate, that one of them in Arkansas or at the Rocky Mountains, has been guilty of peculation, and is wasting the public money. Must the President fold his arms, and suffer him to proceed in his fraudulent course, until the next meeting of the Senate? The truth is, that the President cannot execute the laws of the Union, without this power of removal.

But cases still stronger may be presented. The heads of departments are the confidential advisers of the President. It is chiefly through their agency that he must conduct the great operations of Government. Without a direct control over them, it would be impossible for him to take care that the laws shall be faithfully executed. Suppose that one of them, during the recess of the Senate, violates his instructions, refuses to hold any intercourse with the President, and pursues a career which he believes to be in opposition to the Constitution, the laws and the best interests of the country. Shall the executive arm be paralyzed; and in such a case, must he patiently submit to all these evils until the Senate can be convened? In time of war, the country 288might be ruined by a corrupt Secretary of War, before the Senate could be assembled.

It is not my intention, on this occasion, to discuss the question of the removal of the deposits from the Bank of the United States. I merely wish to present it as a forcible illustration of my argument. Suppose the late Secretary of the Treasury had determined to remove the deposits, and the President had believed this measure would be as ruinous to the country as the friends of the bank apprehended. If the Secretary, notwithstanding the remonstrances of the President, had proceeded to issue the order for their removal, what should we have heard from those who were the loudest in their denunciations against the Executive, if he had said, my arms are tied, I have no power to arrest the act—the deposits must be removed, because I cannot remove my Secretary? Here the evil would have been done before the Senate could possibly have been assembled. I am indebted to the speech of the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Calhoun), at the last session, for this illustration. The truth is, view the subject in any light you may, the power of removal is in its nature inseparable from the executive power.

I have been presenting the inconveniences which would arise, during the recess of the Senate, from the want of this power in the executive. But suppose the Senate to be always in session, would this remove every difficulty? By no means. Confer upon the Senate the power of rejecting removals, and you make the executive, in the language of the debate of 1789, a double-headed monster. That power on whom is devolved the execution of your laws, must be able to remove a corrupt or an incompetent agent from office, or he cannot perform his duties. The Senate may, without inconvenience, and with very great advantage to the country, participate in appointments; but when the man is once in office, the President must necessarily possess the power of turning him out in case he does not perform his duties. This power ought not to depend upon the will of the Senate; for that body have nothing to do with the execution of the laws.

If the power contended for were vested in the Senate, what would be the consequences? Still more dangerous, if possible, than any which I have yet depicted. The cases in which removals are necessary, must rapidly increase with the number of our officers and our rapidly extending population. If the President must assign reasons to the Senate for his removals, according to the provisions of this bill, or if the Senate must participate in these removals, as well as in appointments, it necessarily follows, that these reasons must be investigated. Witnesses must be examined to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the charges made against the officer sought to be removed. The case must be tried judicially. Time must be consumed to the prejudice of our other duties. The legislative functions of the Senate must thus become impaired, and feelings excited between co-ordinate branches of the Government calculated to produce a most injurious effect upon the country. In this state of things, the case might readily occur which was anticipated by Mr. Madison in 1789. A majority of the Senate might even keep one of the heads of 289department in office against the will of the President. Whether they would have done so or not last winter, in the case of the Secretary of the Treasury, I shall not pretend to determine.

If this power were conferred upon the Senate, it would interfere with our judicial functions to a dangerous and alarming extent. The removal of a high officer of the Government is recommended by the President to the Senate, because of official misconduct. The charges are tried before the Senate. From the very nature of the question it must become in fact a judicial investigation. The Senate determine either that he shall remain in his office or that he shall be removed. In either case, the House of Representatives, possessing the sole power of impeachment under the Constitution, determine to exercise it against this officer. But the Senate have, by their previous proceedings, utterly disqualified themselves from giving to the accused an impartial trial. They have already decided upon his guilt or his innocence. Instead of proceeding to the trial, unbiased by favor or by prejudice, their minds are inflamed, their judgments are biased, and they come to the investigation with the feelings of partisans, rather than those of judges. The House of Representatives would have a just right to complain loudly against the exercise of this power by the Senate. We should thus disqualify ourselves from judging impartially in cases between the people of the United States and the high officers of the Government.

I think I have successfully established the position that no two things can in their nature be more distinct than the power of appointment and that of removal. If this be the case, then what becomes of the argument of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Webster)? It rested entirely upon the principle, that these two powers were so identical in their nature, that because the Senate, under the Constitution, have the express power of advising and consenting to appointments, that, therefore, by implication, they must possess the power of advising and consenting to removals. The inference is without foundation.

The truth is, that the more we discuss this question, we shall have the greater reason to admire the wisdom of the Constitution, and of those enlightened and patriotic men who placed that construction upon it in the beginning, which I shall venture to predict never will be disturbed by the American people. The Senate, from the nature of the body, are fully competent to assist the President in appointments. It would change their character altogether, and paralyze the executive arm of the Government, if they were to usurp the power of interfering in removals from office. Let the Constitution and the construction of it by its founders, in this particular, be perpetual!

It has been objected that the President, by this construction, is too far removed from responsibility in the exercise of this power. But he is responsibleresponsible to the American people, whose servant he is, in this as in all other cases. Unless you palsy the executive arm, and render it powerless to do good, lest it may do evil, you cannot support the doctrine which has been urged. You must vest some discretion; you must repose some confidence in the executive, 290or the wheels of Government must stand still. Should he abuse his power, he is liable to the censure of public opinion; and, in flagrant cases, he may be impeached.

It was contended in the first Congress, and the same argument has been urged upon the present occasion, that the power of removal was not recognized by the Constitution—that it was a case omitted, and that, therefore, by implication, it belongs to Congress. This argument was fully met and successfully refuted in 1789. If this principle were established, the executive power would have no necessary control over executive officers. Congress might confer the power of removal upon the Senate alone, or upon the House of Representatives alone, or upon both conjointly, without any participation of the President. This Government—the admiration of the world, would present the solecism of an executive without any control over executive agents, except what might be granted to him by the legislature. We are not placed in this unfortunate predicament. The President, under the Constitution, has the power of removal. It is a constitutional power, not to be controlled by the legislature. It is a power equally sovereign in its nature with that of legislation itself. He is a co-ordinate branch of the Government, and has the same right to exercise his discretion in removals from office, that Congress possess in regard to the enactment of laws.

This brings me to consider the constitutionality of the third section of the bill now depending before us. It provides “that in all nominations made by the President to the Senate, to fill vacancies occasioned by removal from office, the fact of the removal shall be stated to the Senate at the time that the nomination is made, with a statement of the reasons for such removal.”

Whence do we derive our authority to demand his reasons? If the Constitution has conferred upon him the power of removal, as I think I have clearly shown, is it not absolute in its nature and entirely free from the control of Congress? Is he not as independent in the exercise of this power as Congress in the exercise of any power conferred upon them by the Constitution? Would he not have the same authority to demand from us our reasons for rejecting a nomination, as we possess to call upon him for his reasons for making a removal? Might he not say, I am answerable to the American people, and to them alone, for the exercise of this power, in the same manner that the Senate is for the exercise of any power conferred upon them by the Constitution?

With all the deference which I feel for the opinions of the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. White), I think he has arrived at the conclusion that the third section of this bill is constitutional, by blending things together which are in their nature entirely distinct. He asks, is it not in the power of Congress to create the office, to define its duties, and to change and vary these duties at pleasure? Granted. May they not, if they believe the office unnecessary, repeal the law, and must not the officer fall with it? Granted. These are legislative powers, clearly conferred upon Congress by the Constitution. It is then asked, may Congress not prescribe it as the duty of these officers to 291give reasons for their conduct? Certainly they may. And why? Because they are the creatures of Congress—they are called into existence by Congress—and they will cease to exist at the pleasure of Congress. Is this the condition of the executive, who is a co-ordinate branch of the Government, and who is answerable for his conduct, not to Congress, but to the people of the United States. What right have we to demand reasons from the servant of another as to how he performs his duties? To his own master, which, in this particular, is the American people, and to them alone, he is responsible. If Congress can command him to give reasons to the Senate for his removals, the Senate may judge of the validity of these reasons, and condemn them if they think proper. The executive of the country is thus rendered subordinate to the Senate;—a position in which the Constitution of the country never intended to place him. In my opinion, this bill as strongly negatives the constitutional power of the President to remove from office, without the concurrence of the Senate, as if it were so declared in express language. For this reason I shall vote against it.

In the next session, which commenced in December, 1836, Mr. Buchanan delivered a speech which may perhaps be regarded as the ablest of his efforts in the Senate. It related to a topic that had long been attended with intense political excitement. President Jackson’s removal of the public deposits from the Bank of the United States furnished to the Whig opponents of his administration a means of attack, of which they were not slow to avail themselves. The powerful opposition, which at the time of that occurrence controlled the proceedings of the Senate, was led by Mr. Clay, who was the defeated Whig candidate for the Presidency at the election of 1832. Swaying his party in the Senate with an imperious will, and enforcing his determinations by a fascinating eloquence, Mr. Clay, on the 28th of March, 1834, carried a resolution, which was inscribed on the journal of the Senate in the following words: “That the President, in the late executive proceedings, in relation to the public revenue, has assumed upon himself authority and power not conferred by the Constitution and laws, but in derogation of both.” On the 3d of March, 1835, a resolution introduced by Col. Benton, of Missouri, ordering Mr. Clay’s resolution to be “expunged” from the journal, came up for consideration. The word “expunged” was stricken out by a vote in which the mover and other friends of the administration concurred, so that some other less objectionable 292phrase might be substituted. But as soon as this word was stricken out, Mr. Webster moved to lay the resolution on the table, giving notice that he would not withdraw his motion “for friend or foe.” The motion was not debatable, and as the Whigs still had a majority, it was carried by a party vote. The Democratic Senators then determined that the word “expunged” should never be again surrendered. At the next session they had a majority; and Col. Benton’s resolution then came up, in a form which directed that Mr. Clay’s resolution of 1834 be expunged from the journal of the Senate, by drawing black lines around it, and writing across its face the words, “Expunged by order of the Senate, this —— day of —— in the year of our Lord 1837.” It was upon this proposal, in reply to an impassioned speech by Mr. Clay, that Mr. Buchanan, on the 16th of January, 1837, addressed the Senate.

There is one praise to be accorded to this speech, which, considering the party character of the struggle, is not a small one. Mr. Buchanan separated what was personal and partisan in this controversy from the serious questions involved; and covering the whole field of argument upon the really important topics in a temperate and courteous but firm discussion, he placed his side of the debate upon its true merits. He began by contending that the censure, which the Senate had in 1834 passed upon the President, was unjust, because he had violated no law in ordering the Secretary of the Treasury to remove the public deposits from the Bank. He then argued that the Senate had committed an infraction of the Constitution, by recording upon its journal an accusation that the President had been guilty of an offence for which he might be impeached, and for which it would be the duty of the Senate to try him on articles of impeachment, if the House of Representatives should ever proceed against him in that manner. In thus prejudging the case, by a resolution of mere naked censure, adopted in its legislative capacity, the Senate had rendered itself incompetent to perform its high judicial function. He concluded his argument by a very ingenious and elaborate criticism of the word “expunge,” arguing that there was a real and solid distinction between a physical obliteration of a record, making it impossible thereafter to be read, and such an annulment of its legal existence 293as was now proposed, and which, by leaving it in a condition to be read, would nevertheless deprive it of all force. It must be confessed that this was a very finely drawn distinction; but it was supported by no inconsiderable acuteness and force, and with great fairness of reasoning. Col. Benton’s resolution was adopted by a party vote, and was immediately carried out.^[53]

The following is a full report of Mr. Buchanan’s speech in support of the Expunging Resolution:

Mr. President:—After the able and eloquent display of the Senator from Kentucky, (Mr. Clay) who has just resumed his seat, after having so long enchained the attention of his audience, it might be the dictate of prudence for me to remain silent. But I feel too deeply my responsibility as an American Senator, not to make the attempt to place before the Senate and the country the reasons which, in my opinion, will justify the vote which I intend to give this day.

A more grave and solemn question has rarely, if ever, been submitted to the Senate of the United States, than the one now under discussion. This Senate is now called upon to review its own decision, to rejudge its own justice, and to annihilate its own sentence, pronounced against the co-ordinate executive branch of this Government. On the 28th of March, 1834, the American Senate, in the face of the American people, in the face of the whole world, by a solemn resolution, pronounced the President of the United States to be a violator of the Constitution of his country—of that Constitution which he had solemnly sworn “to preserve, protect, and defend.” Whether we consider the exalted character of the tribunal which pronounced this condemnation, or the illustrious object against which it was directed, we ought to feel deeply impressed with the high and lasting importance of the present proceeding. It is in fact, if not in form, the trial of the Senate, for having unjustly and unconstitutionally tried and condemned the President; and their accusers are the American people. In this cause I am one of the judges. In some respects, it is a painful position for me to occupy. It is vain, however, to express unavailing regrets. I must, and shall, firmly and sternly, do my duty; although in the performance of it I may wound the 294feelings of gentlemen whom I respect and esteem. I shall proceed no farther than the occasion demands, and will, therefore, justify.

Who was the President of the United States, against whom this sentence has been pronounced? Andrew Jackson—a name which every American mother, after the party strife which agitates us for the present moment shall have passed away, will, during all the generations which this Republic is destined to endure, teach her infant to lisp with that of the venerated name of Washington. The one was the founder, the other the preserver, of the liberties of his country.

If President Jackson has been guilty of violating the Constitution of the United States, let impartial justice take its course. I admit that it is no justification for such a crime, that his long life has been more distinguished by acts of disinterested patriotism than that of any American citizen now living. It is no justification that the honesty of his heart and the purity of his intentions have become proverbial, even amongst his political enemies. It is no justification that in the hour of danger, and in the day of battle, he has been his country’s shield. If he has been guilty, let his name be “damned to everlasting fame,” with those of Cæsar and of Napoleon.

If, on the other hand, he is pure and immaculate from the charge, let us be swift to do him justice, and to blot out the foul stigma which the Senate has placed upon his character. If we are not, he may go down to the grave in doubt as to what may be the final judgment of his country. In any event, he must soon retire to the shades of private life. Shall we, then, suffer his official term to expire, without first doing him justice? It may be said of me, as it has already been said of other Senators, that I am one of the gross adulators of the President. But, sir, I have never said thus much of him whilst he was in the meridian of his power. Now that his political sun is nearly set, I feel myself at liberty to pour forth my grateful feelings, as an American citizen, to a man who has done so much for his country. I have never, for myself, either directly or indirectly, solicited office at his hands; and my character must greatly change, if I should ever do so from any of his successors. If I should bestow upon him the meed of my poor praise, it springs from an impulse far different from that which has been attributed to the majority on this floor. I speak as an independent freeman and American Senator; and I feel proud now to have the opportunity of raising my voice in his defence.

On the 28th day of March, 1834, the Senate of the United States resolved, “that the President, in the late executive proceedings, in relation to the public revenue, has assumed upon himself authority and power not conferred by the Constitution and laws, but in derogation of both.”

In discussing this subject, I shall undertake to prove, first, that this resolution is unjust; secondly, that it is unconstitutional; and in the last place, that it ought to be expunged from our journals, in the manner proposed by the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Benton).

First, then, it is unjust. On this branch of the subject I had intended to 295confine myself to a bare expression of my own decided opinion. This point has been so often and so ably discussed, that it is impossible for me to cast any new light upon it. But as it is my intention to follow the footsteps of the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay) wherever they may lead, I must again tread the ground which has been so often trodden. As the Senator, however, has confined himself to a mere passing reference to the topics which this head presents, I shall, in this particular, follow his example.

Although the resolution condemning the President is vague and general in its terms, yet we all know that it was founded upon his removal of the public deposits from the Bank of the United States. The Senator from Kentucky has contended that this act was a violation of law. And why? Because, says he, it is well known that the public money was secure in that institution; and by its charter the public deposits could not be removed from it, unless under a just apprehension that they were in danger. Now, sir, I admit that if the President had no right to remove these deposits, except for the sole reason that their safety was in danger, the Senator has established his position. But what is the fact? Was the Government thus restricted by the terms of the bank charter? I answer, no. Such a limitation is nowhere to be found in it. Let me read the sixteenth section, which is the only one relating to the subject. It enacts, “that the deposits of the money of the United States, in places in which the said bank and branches thereof may be established, shall be made in said bank or branches thereof, unless the Secretary of the Treasury shall at any other time otherwise order and direct; in which case the Secretary of the Treasury shall immediately lay before Congress, if in session, and, if not, immediately after the commencement of the next session, the reasons of such order or direction.”

Is not the authority thus conferred upon the Secretary of the Treasury as broad and as ample as the English language will admit? Where is the limitation, where the restriction? One might have supposed from the argument of the Senator from Kentucky, that the charter restricted the Secretary of the Treasury from removing the deposits, unless he believed them to be insecure in the Bank of the United States; but the language of the law itself completely refutes his argument. They were to remain in the Bank of the United States, “unless the Secretary of the Treasury shall at any time otherwise order and direct.”

The sole limitation upon the discretion of that officer was his immediate and direct responsibility to Congress. To us he was bound to render his reasons for removing the deposits. We, and we alone, are constituted the judges as to the sufficiency of these reasons.

It would be an easy task to prove that the authors of the bank charter acted wisely in not limiting the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury over the deposits to the single case of their apprehended insecurity. We may imagine many other reasons which would have rendered their removal both wise and expedient. But I forbear; especially as the case now before the Senate presents as striking an illustration of this proposition as I could 296possibly imagine. Upon what principle, then, do I justify the removal of the deposits?

The Bank of the United States had determined to apply for a recharter at the session of Congress immediately preceding the last Presidential election. Preparatory to this application, and whilst it was pending, in the short space of sixteen months, it had increased its loans more than twenty-eight million dollars. They rose from forty-two millions to seventy millions between the last of December, 1830, and the first of May, 1832. Whilst this boasted regulator of the currency was thus expanding its discounts, all the local banks followed the example. The impulse of self-interest urged them to pursue this course. A delusive prosperity was thus spread over the land. Money everywhere became plenty. The bank was regarded as the beneficent parent, who was pouring her money out into the laps of her children. She thought herself wise and provident in thus rendering herself popular. The recharter passed both Houses of Congress by triumphant majorities. But then came “the frost, the killing frost.” It was not so easy to propitiate “the Old Roman.” Although he well knew the power and influence which the bank could exert against him at the then approaching Presidential election, he cast such considerations to the winds. He vetoed the bill, and in the most solemn manner placed himself for trial upon this question before the American people.

From that moment the faith of many of his former friends began to grow cold. The bank openly took the field against his re-election. It expended large sums in subsidizing editors, and in circulating pamphlets, and papers, and speeches, throughout the Union, calculated to inflame the public mind against the President. I merely glance at these things.

Let us pause for a single moment to consider the consequences of such conduct. What right had the bank, as a corporation, to enter the arena of politics for the purpose of defending itself, and attacking the President? Whilst I freely admit that each individual stockholder possessed the same rights, in this respect, as every other American citizen, I pray you to consider what a dangerous precedent the bank has thus established. Our banks now number nearly a thousand, and our other chartered institutions are almost innumerable. If all these corporations are to be justified in using their corporate funds for the purpose of influencing elections; of elevating their political friends, and crushing their political foes, our condition is truly deplorable. We shall thus introduce into the State a new, a dangerous, and an alarming power, the effects of which no man can anticipate. Watchful jealousy is the price which a free people must ever pay for their liberties; and this jealousy should be Argus-eyed in watching the political movements of corporations.

After the bank had been defeated in the Presidential election, it adopted a new course of policy. What it had been unable to accomplish by making money plenty, it determined it would wrest from the sufferings of the people by making money scarce. Pressure and panic then became its weapons; and with these it was determined, if possible, to extort a recharter from the American people. It commenced this warfare upon the interests of the 297country about the first of August, 1833. In two short months it decreased its loans more than four millions of dollars, whilst the deposits of the Government with it had increased, during the same period, two millions and a quarter. I speak in round numbers. It was then in the act of reducing its discounts at the rate of two millions of dollars per month.

The State banks had expanded their loans with the former expansion of the Bank of the United States. It now became necessary to contract them. The severest pressure began to be felt everywhere. Had the Bank of the United States been permitted a short time longer to proceed in this course, fortified as it was with the millions of the Government which it held on deposit, a scene of almost universal bankruptcy and insolvency must have been presented in our commercial cities. It thus became absolutely necessary for the President either to deprive the bank of the public deposits, as the only means of protecting the State banks, and through them the people, from these impending evils, or calmly to look on and see it spreading ruin throughout the land. It was necessary for him to adopt this policy for the purpose of preventing a universal derangement of the currency, a general sacrifice of property, and, as an inevitable consequence, the recharter of this institution.

By the removal of the deposits, he struck a blow against the bank from which it has never since recovered. This was the club of Hercules with which he slew the hydra. This was the master-stroke by which he prostrated what a large majority of the American people believe to have been a corrupt and a corrupting institution. For this he is not only justified, but deserves the eternal gratitude of his country. For this the Senate have condemned him; but the people of the United States have hailed him as a deliverer.

It has been said by the Senator from Kentucky, that the President, by removing the deposits from the Bank of the United States, united in his own hands the power of the purse of the nation with that of the sword. I think it is not difficult to answer this argument. What was to become of the public money, in case it had been removed from the Bank of the United States, under its charter, for the cause which the Senator himself deems justifiable? Why, sir, it would then have been immediately remitted to the guardianship of those laws under which it had been protected before the Bank of the United States was called into existence. Such was the present case. In regard to this point, no matter whether the cause of removal were sufficient or not, the moment the deposits were actually removed they became subject to the pre-existing laws, and not to the arbitrary will of the President.

The Senator from Kentucky has contended that the President violated the Constitution and the laws, by dismissing Mr. Duane from office because he would not remove the deposits, and by appointing Mr. Taney to accomplish this purpose. I shall not discuss at any length the power of removal. It is now too late in the day to question it. That the executive possesses this power was decided by the first Congress. It has often since been discussed and decided in the same manner, and it has been exercised by every President of the United States. The President is bound by the Constitution to 298“take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” If he cannot remove his executive officers, it is impossible that he can perform this duty. Every inferior officer might set up for himself; might violate the laws of the country, and put him at defiance, whilst he would remain perfectly powerless. He could not arrest their career. A foreign minister might be betraying and disgracing the nation abroad, without any power to recall him until the next meeting of the Senate. This construction of the Constitution involves so many dangers and so many absurdities, that it could not be maintained for a moment, even if there had not been a constant practice against it of almost half a century.

But it is contended by the Senator that the Secretary of the Treasury is a sort of independent power in the State, and is released from the control of the executive. And why? Simply because he is directed by law to make his annual report to Congress and not to the President. If this position be correct, then it necessarily follows that the executive is released from the obligation of taking care that the numerous and important acts of Congress regulating the fiscal concerns of the country shall be faithfully executed. The Secretary of the Treasury is thus made independent of his control. What would be the position of this officer under such a construction of the Constitution and laws, it would be very difficult to decide. And this wonderful transformation of his character has arisen from the mere circumstance that Congress have by law directed him to make an annual report to them! No, sir; the executive is responsible to Congress for the faithful execution of all the laws; and if the present or any other President should prove faithless to his high trust, the present Senate, notwithstanding all which has been said, would be as ready as their predecessors to inflict condign punishment upon him, in the mode pointed out by the Constitution.

I have now arrived at the great question of the constitutional power of the Senate to adopt the resolution of March, 1834. It is my firm conviction that the Senate possesses no such power; and it is now my purpose to establish this position. The decision on this point must depend upon a true answer to the question: Does this resolution contain any impeachable charge against the President? If it does, I trust I shall demonstrate that the Senate violated its constitutional duty in proceeding to condemn him in this manner. I shall again read the resolution:

“Resolved, That the President, in the late executive proceedings in relation to the public revenue, has assumed upon himself authority and power not conferred by the Constitution and laws, but in derogation of both.”

This language is brief and comprehensive. It comes at once to the point. It bears a striking impress of the character of the Senator from Kentucky. Does it charge an impeachable offence against the President?

The fourth section of the second article of the Constitution declares that the “President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

299It has been contended that this condemnatory resolution contains no impeachable offence, because it charges no criminal intention against the President; and I admit that it does not attribute to him any corrupt motive in express words. Is this sufficient to convince the judgment of any impartial man that none was intended? Let us, for a few moments, examine this proposition. If it be well founded, the Senate may for ever hereafter usurp the power of trying, condemning, and destroying any officer of the Government, without affording him the slightest opportunity of being heard in his defence. They may abuse their power, and prostrate any object of their vengeance. It seems we have now made the discovery, that the Senate are authorized to exert this tremendous power—that they may thus assume to themselves the office both of accuser and of judge, provided the indictment contains no express allegation of a criminal intention. The President, or any officer of the Government, may be denounced by the Senate as a violator of the Constitution of his country,—as derelict in the performance of his public duties, provided there is no express imputation of an improper motive. The characters of men whose reputation is dearer to them than their lives may thus be destroyed. They may be held up to public execration by the omission of a few formal words. The condemnation of the Senate carries with it such a moral power, that perhaps there is no man in the United States, except Andrew Jackson, who could have resisted its force. No, sir; such an argument can never command conviction. That which we have no power to do directly, we can never accomplish by indirect means. We cannot by resolution convict a man of an impeachable offence, merely because we may omit the formal words of an impeachment. We must regard the substance of things, and not the mere form.

But again. Although a criminal intention be not charged, in so many words, by this resolution, yet its language, even without the attendant circumstances, clearly conveys this meaning. The President is charged with having “assumed upon himself authority and power not conferred by the Constitution and laws, but in derogation of both.” “Assumed upon himself.” What is the plain palpable meaning of this phrase connected with what precedes and follows? Is it not “to arrogate,” “to claim or seize unjustly.” These are two of the first meanings of the word assume, according to the lexicographers. To assume upon one’s self is a mode of expression which is rarely taken in a good sense. As it is used here, I ask if any man of plain common understanding, after reading this resolution, would ever arrive at the conclusion that any Senator voted for it under the impression that the President was innocent of any improper intention, and that he violated the Constitution from mere mistake and from pure motives? The common sense of mankind revolts at the idea. How can it be contended, for a single moment, that you can denounce the President as a man who had “assumed upon himself” the power of violating the laws and the Constitution of his country, and in the same breath declare that you had not the least intention to criminate him, and that your language was altogether inoffensive. The two propositions are manifestly inconsistent.

300But I go one step further. If we were sitting as a court of impeachment, and the bare proposition were established to our satisfaction that the President had, in violation of the Constitution and the laws, withdrawn the public revenue of the country from the depository to whose charge Congress had committed it, and assumed the control over it himself, we would be bound to convict him of a high official misdemeanor. Under such circumstances, we should be bound to infer a criminal intention from this illegal and unconstitutional act. Criminal justice could never be administered,—society could not exist, if the tribunals of the country should not attribute evil motives to illegal and unconstitutional conduct. Omniscience alone can examine the heart. When poor frail man is placed in the judgment-seat, he must infer the intentions of the accused from his actions. That “the tree is known by its fruits” is an axiom which we have derived from the fountain of all truth. Does a poor, naked, hungry wretch, at this inclement season of the year, take from my pocket a single dollar; the law infers a criminal intent, and he must be convicted and punished as a thief, though he may have been actuated by no other motive than that of saving his wife and his children from starvation. And shall a different rule be applied to the President of the United States? Shall it be said of a man elevated to the highest station on earth, for his wisdom, his integrity, and his virtues, with all his constitutional advisers around him, when he violates the Constitution of his country and usurps the control over its entire revenue, that he may successfully defend himself by declaring he had done this deed without any criminal intention? No, sir; in such a case, above all others, the criminal intention must be inferred from the unconstitutional exercise of high and dangerous powers. The safety of the Republic demands that the President of the United States should never shield himself behind such flimsy pretexts. This resolution, therefore, although it may not have assumed the form of an article of impeachment, possesses all the substance.

It was my fate some years ago to have assisted as a manager, in behalf of the House of Representatives, in the trial of an impeachment before this body. It then became my duty to examine all the precedents in such cases which had occurred under our Government, since the adoption of the Federal Constitution. On that occasion, I found one which has a strong bearing upon this question. I refer to the case of Judge Pickering. He was tried and condemned by the Senate upon all the four articles exhibited against him; although the first three contained no other charge than that of making decisions contrary to law, in a cause involving a mere question of property, and then refusing to grant the party injured an appeal from his decision, to which he was entitled. From the clear violation of law in this case, the Senate must have inferred an impure and improper motive.

If any thing further were wanting to prove that the resolution of the Senate contained a criminal and impeachable charge against the President, it might be demonstrated from all the circumstances attending the transaction. Whilst this resolution was in progress through the Senate, the Bank of the 301United States was employed in producing panic and pressure throughout the land. Much actual suffering was experienced by the people; and where that did not exist, they dreaded unknown and awful calamities. Confidence between man and man was at an end. There was a fearful pause in the business of the country. We were then engaged in the most violent party conflict recorded in our annals. To use the language of the Senator from Kentucky, we were in the midst of a revolution. On the one side it was contended that the power over the purse of the nation had been usurped by the President; that in his own person he had united this power with that of the sword, and that the liberties of the people were gone, unless he could be arrested in his mad career. On the other hand, the friends of the President maintained that the removal of the deposits from the Bank of the United States was an act of stern justice to the people; that it was strictly legal and constitutional; that he was impelled to it by the highest and purest principles of patriotism; and that it was the only means of prostrating an institution which threatened the destruction of our dearest rights and liberties. During this terrific conflict public indignation was aroused to such a degree, that the President received a great number of anonymous letters, threatening him with assassination unless he should restore the deposits.

It was during the pendency of this conflict throughout the country, that the Senator from Kentucky thought proper, on the 26th December, 1833, to present his condemnatory resolution to the Senate. And here, sir, permit me to say that I do not believe there was any corrupt connection between any Senator upon this floor and the Bank of the United States. But it was at this inauspicious moment that the resolution was introduced. How was it supported by the Senator from Kentucky? He told us that a revolution had already commenced. He told us that by the 3d of March, 1837, if the progress of innovation should continue, there would be scarcely a vestige remaining of the Government and policy as they had existed prior to the 3d March, 1829. That in a term of years a little more than that which was required to establish our liberties, the Government would be transformed into an elective monarchy—the worst of all forms of government. He compared the measure adopted by General Jackson with the conduct of the usurping Cæsar, who, after he had overrun Italy in sixty days, and conquered the liberties of his native country, terrified the Tribune Metellus, who guarded the treasury of the Roman people, and seized it by open force. He declared that the President had proclaimed an open, palpable, and daring usurpation. He concluded by asserting that the premonitory symptoms of despotism were upon us; and if Congress did not apply an instantaneous and effective remedy, the fatal collapse would soon come on, and we should die—ignobly die! base, mean, and abject slaves, the scorn and contempt of mankind, unpitied, unwept, and unmourned. What a spectacle was then presented in this Chamber! We are told, in the reports of the day, that, when he took his seat, there was repeated and loud applause in the galleries. This, it will be remembered, was the introductory speech of the Senator. In my opinion, it was one of the 302ablest and most eloquent of all his able and eloquent speeches. He was then riding upon the whirlwind and directing the storm. At the time I read it, for I was not then in the Senate, it reminded me of the able, the vindictive, and the eloquent appeal of Mr. Burke before the House of Lords, on the impeachment of Warren Hastings, in which he denounced that governor-general as the ravager and oppressor of India, and the scourge of the millions who had been placed under his authority.

And yet, we are now told that this resolution did not intend to impute any criminal motive to the President. That he was a good old man, though not a good constitutional lawyer: and that he knew better how to wield the sword than to construe the Constitution.

[Mr. Clay here rose to explain. He said, “I never have said and never will say, that personally I acquitted the President of any improper intention. I lament that I cannot say it. But what I did say, was that the act of the Senate of 1834 is free from the imputation of any criminal motives.”motives.”]

Sir, said Mr. B., this avowal is in character with the frank and manly nature of the Senator from Kentucky. It is no more than what I expected from him. The imputation of any improper motive to the President has been again and again disclaimed by other Senators upon this floor. The Senator from Kentucky has now boldly come out in his true colors, and avows the principles which he held at the time. He acknowledges that he did not acquit the President from improper intentions, when charging him with a violation of the Constitution of his country.

This trial of the President before the Senate, continued for three months. During this whole period, instead of the evidence which a judicial tribunal ought to receive, exciting memorials, signed by vast numbers of the people, and well calculated to inflame the passions of his judges, were daily pouring in upon the Senate. He was denounced upon this floor by every odious epithet which belongs to tyrants. Finally, the obnoxious resolution was adopted by the vote of the Senate, on the 28th day of March, 1834. After the exposition which I have made, can any impartial mind doubt but that this resolution intended to charge against the President a wilful and daring violation of the Constitution and the laws? I think not.

The Senator from Kentucky has argued, with his usual power, that the functions of the Senate, acting in a legislative capacity, are not to be restricted, because it is possible that the same question, in another form, may come before us judicially. I concur in the truth and justice of this position. We must perform our legislative duties; and if, in the investigation of facts, having legislation distinctly in view, we should incidentally be led to the investigation of criminal charges, it is a necessity imposed upon us by our condition, from which we cannot escape. It results from the varying nature of our duties, and not from our own will. I admit that it would be difficult to mark the precise line which separates our legislative from our judicial functions. I shall not attempt it. In many cases, from necessity, they are in some degree intermingled. The present resolution, however, stands far in advance of this 303line. It is placed in bold relief, and is clear of all such difficulties. It is a mere naked resolution of censure. It refers solely to the past conduct of the President, and condemns it in the strongest terms, without even proposing any act of legislation by which the evil may be remedied hereafter. It was judgment upon the past alone; not prevention for the future. Nay, more: the resolution is so vague and general in its terms that it is impossible to ascertain from its face the cause of the President’s condemnation. The Senate have resolved that the executive “has assumed upon himself authority and power not conferred by the Constitution and laws, but in derogation of both.” What is the specification under this charge? Why, that he has acted thus, “in the late executive proceedings in relation to the public revenue?” What executive proceedings? The resolution leaves us entirely in the dark upon this subject. How could any legislation spring from such a resolution? It is impossible. None such was ever attempted.

If the resolution had preserved its original phraseology—if it had condemned the President for dismissing one Secretary of the Treasury because he would not remove the deposits, and for appointing his successor to effect this purpose, the Senator might then have contended that the evil was distinctly pointed out; and, although no legislation was proposed, the remedy might be applied hereafter. But he has deprived himself even of this feeble argument. He has left us upon an ocean of uncertainty, without chart or compass. “The late executive proceedings in relation to the revenue,” is a phrase of the most general and indefinite character. Every Senator who voted in favor of this resolution may have acted upon different principles. To procure its passage, nothing more was necessary than that a majority should unite in the conclusion that the President had violated the Constitution and the laws in some one or other of his numerous acts in relation to the public revenue. The views of Senators constituting the majority may have varied from each other to any conceivable extent; and yet they may have united in the final vote. That this was the fact to a considerable extent, I have always understood. It is utterly impossible, either that such a proceeding could ever have been intended to become the basis of legislation, or that legislative action could have ever sprung from such a source.

I flatter myself, then, I have succeeded in proving that this resolution charged the President with a high official misdemeanor, wholly disconnected from legislation, which, if true, ought to have subjected him to impeachment.

This brings me directly to the question, had the Senate any power, under the Constitution, to adopt such a resolution? In other words, can the Senate condemn a public officer by a simple resolution, for an offence which would subject him to an impeachment? To state the proposition, is to answer this question in the negative. Dreadful would be the consequences if we possesspossess and should exercise such a power.

This body is invested with high and responsible powers of a legislative, an executive, and a judicial character. No person can enter it until he has attained a mature age. Our term of service is longer than that of any other 304elective functionary. If Senators will have it so, it is the most aristocratic branch of our Government. For what purpose did the framers of the Constitution confer upon it these varied and important powers, and this long tenure of office? The answer is plain. It was placed in this secure and elevated position that it might be above the storms of faction which so often inflame the passions of men. It never was intended to be an arena for political gladiators. Until the second session of the third Congress, the Senate always sat with closed doors, except in the single instance when the eligibility of Mr. Gallatin to a seat in the body was the subject of discussion. Of this particular practice, however, I cannot approve. I merely state it, to show the intention of those who formed the Constitution. I was informed by one of the most eminent statesmen and Senators which this country has ever produced, now no more (the late Mr. King), that for some years after the Federal Government commenced its operation, the debates of the Senate resembled conversations rather than speeches, and that it originated but few legislative measures. Senators were then critics rather than authors in legislation. Whether its gain in eloquence, since it has become a popular assembly, and since the sound of thundering applause has been heard in our galleries at the denunciation of the President, has been an equivalent for its loss in true dignity, may well be doubted. To give this body its just influence with the people, it ought to preserve itself as free as possible from angry political discussions. In the performance of our executive duties, in the ratification of treaties, and in the confirmation of nominations, the Constitution has connected us with the executive. The efficient and successful administration of the Government therefore requires that we should move on together in as much harmony as may be consistent with the independent exercise of our respective functions.

But above all, we should be the most cautious in guarding our judicial character from suspicion. We constitute the high court of impeachment of this nation, before which every officer of the Government may be arraigned. To this tribunal is committed the character of men whose character is far dearer to them than their lives. We should be the rock standing in the midst of the ocean, for the purpose of affording a shelter to the faithful officer from unjust persecution, against which the billows might dash themselves in vain. Whilst we are a terror to evil doers, we should be a praise to those who do well. We should never voluntarily perform any act which might prejudice our judgment, or render us suspected as a judicial tribunal. More especially, when the President of the United States is arraigned at the bar of public opinion for offences which might subject him to an impeachment, we should remain not only chaste but unsuspected. Better, infinitely better, would it be for us not to manifest our feeling, even in a case in which we were morally certain the House of Representatives would not prefer before us articles of impeachment, than to reach the object of our disapprobation by a usurpation of their rights. It is true that when the Senate passed the resolution condemning the President, a majority in the House were of a different 305opinion. But the next elections might have changed that majority into a minority. The House might then have voted articles of impeachment against the President. Under such circumstances, I pray you to consider in what a condition the Senate would have been placed. They had already prejudged the case. They had already convicted the President, and denounced him to the world as a violator of the Constitution. In criminal prosecutions, even against the greatest malefactor, if a juror has prejudged the cause, he cannot enter the jury box. The Senate had rendered itself wholly incompetent in this case to perform its highest judicial functions. The trial of the President, had articles of impeachment been preferred against him, would have been but a solemn mockery of justice.

The Constitution of the United States has carefully provided against such an enormous evil, by declaring that “the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment,” and “the Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.” Until the accused is brought before us by the House, it is a manifest violation of our solemn duty to condemn him by a resolution.

If a court of criminal jurisdiction, without any indictment having been found by a grand jury, without having given the defendant notice to appear, without having afforded him an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses against him, and making his defence, should resolve that he was guilty of a high crime, and place this conviction upon their records, all mankind would exclaim against the injustice and unconstitutionality of the act. Wherein consists the difference between this case and the condemnation of the President? In nothing, except that such a conviction by the Senate, on account of its exalted character, would fall with tenfold force upon its object. I have often been astonished, notwithstanding the extended and well deserved popularity of General Jackson, that the moral influence of this condemnation by the Senate had not crushed him. With what tremendous effect might this assumed power of the Senate be used to blast the reputation of any man who might fall under its displeasure! The precedent is extremely dangerous; and the American people have wisely determined to blot it out forever.

It is painful to reflect what might have been the condition of the country, if at the inauspicious moment of the passage of the resolution against the President, its interests and its honor had rendered it necessary to engage in a foreign war. The fearful consequences of such a condition, at such a moment, must strike every mind. Would the Senate then have confided to the President the necessary power to defend the country? Where could the sinews of war have been found? In what condition was this body, at that moment, to act upon an important treaty negotiated by the President, or upon any of his nominations? But I forbear to enlarge upon this topic.

I have now arrived at the last point in this discussion. Do the Senate possess the power, under the Constitution, of expunging the resolution of March, 1834, from their journals, in the manner proposed by the Senator from Missouri? (Mr. Benton.) I cheerfully admit we must show that this is not 306contrary to the Constitution; for we can never redress one violation of that instrument by committing another. Before I proceed to this branch of the subject, I shall put myself right, by a brief historical reminiscence. I entered the Senate in December, 1834, fresh from the ranks of the people, without the slightest feeling of hostility against any Senator on this floor. I then thought that the resolution of the Senator from Missouri was too severe in proposing to expunge. Although I was anxious to record, in strong terms, my entire disapprobation of the resolution of March, 1834, yet I was willing to accomplish this object without doing more violence to the feelings of my associates on this floor, than was absolutely necessary to justify the President. Actuated by these friendly motives, I exerted all my little influence with the Senator from Missouri, to induce him to abandon the word expunge, and substitute some others in its place. I knew that this word was exceedingly obnoxious to the Senators who had voted for the former resolution. Other friends of his also exerted their influence; and at length his kindly feelings prevailed, and he consented to abandon that word, although it was peculiarly dear to him. I speak from my own knowledge. “All which I saw and part of which I was.”

The resolution of the Senator from Missouri came before the Senate on the 3d of March, 1835. Under it the resolution of March, 1834, was “ordered to be expunged from the journal,” for reasons appearing on its face, which I need not enumerate. The Senator from Tennessee (Mr. White) moved to amend the resolution of the Senator from Missouri, by striking out the order to expunge, with the reasons for it, and inserting in their stead the words, “rescinded, reversed, repealed, and declared to be null and void.” Some difference of opinion then arose among the friends of the Administration as to the words which should be substituted in place of the order to expunge. For the purpose of leaving this question perfectly open, you, sir, (Mr. King, of Alabama, was in the chair,) then moved to amend the original motion of Mr. Benton, by striking out the words, “ordered to be expunged from the journal of the Senate.” This motion prevailed, on the ayes and noes, by a vote of 39 to 7; and amongst the ayes, the name of the Senator from Missouri is recorded. The resolution was thus left a blank, in its most essential features, ready to be filled up as the Senate might direct. The era of good feeling, in regard to this subject had commenced. It was nipped in the bud, however, by the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Webster). Whilst the resolution was still in blank, he rose in his place, and proclaimed the triumph of the Constitution, by the vote to strike out the word expunge, and then moved to lay the resolution on the table, declaring that he would neither withdraw his motion for friend nor foe. This motion precluded all amendment and all debate. It prevailed by a party vote; and thus we were left with our resolution a blank. Such was the manner in which the Senators in opposition received our advances of courtesy and kindness, in the moment of their strength and our weakness. Had the Senator from Massachusetts suffered us to proceed but for five minutes, we should have filled up the blank in the resolution. 307It would then have assumed a distinct form, and they would never afterwards have heard of the word expunge. We should have been content with the words “rescinded, reversed, repealed, and declared to be null and void.” But the conduct of the Senator from Massachusetts on that occasion, and that of the party with which he acted, roused the indignation of every friend of the Administration on this floor. We then determined that the word expunge should never again be surrendered.

The Senator from Kentucky has introduced a precedent from the proceedings of the House of Representatives of Pennsylvania, for the purpose of proving that we have no right to adopt this resolution. To this I can have no possible objection. But I can tell the Senator, if I were convinced that I had voted wrong, when comparatively a boy, more than twenty years ago, the fear of being termed inconsistent would not now deter me from voting right upon the same question. I do not, however, repent of my vote upon that occasion. I would now vote in the same manner, under similar circumstances. I should not vote to expunge, under any circumstances, any proceeding from the journals by obliterating the record. If I do not prove before I take my seat, that the case in the Legislature of Pennsylvania was essentially different from that now before the Senate, I shall agree to be proclaimed inconsistent and time-serving.

It was my settled conviction at the commencement of the last session of Congress, that the Senate had no power to obliterate their journal. This was shaken, but not removed, by the argument of the Senator from Louisiana, (Mr. Porter), who confessedly made the ablest speech on the other side of the question. The Constitution declares that “each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy.” What was the position which that Senator then attempted to maintain? In order to prove that we had no power to obliterate or destroy our journals, he thought it necessary to contend that the word “keep” as used in the Constitution, means both to record and to preserve. This appeared to me to be a mere begging of the question.

I shall attempt no definition of the word “keep.” At least since the days of Plato, we know that definitions have been dangerous. Yet I think that the meaning of this word, as applied to the subject matter, is so plain that he who runs may read. If I direct my agent to keep a journal of his proceedings, and publish the same, my palpable meaning is, that he shall write these proceedings down, from day to day, and publish what he has written for general information. After he has obeyed my commands, after he has kept his journal, and published it to the world, he has executed the essential part of the trust confided to him. What becomes of this original manuscript journal afterwards, is a matter of total indifference. So in regard to the manuscript journals of either House of Congress: after more than a thousand copies have been printed, and published, and distributed over the Union, it is a matter of not the least importance what disposition may be made of them. 308They have answered their purpose, and, in any practical view, become useless. If they were burnt, or otherwise destroyed, it would not be an event of the slightest public consequence. Such indifference has prevailed upon this subject, that these journals have been considered, in the House of Representatives, as so much waste paper, and, during a period of thirty-four years after the organization of the Government, they were actually destroyed. From this circumstance, no public or private inconvenience has been or ever can be sustained; because our printed journals are received in evidence in all courts of justice in the same manner as if the originals were produced.

The Senator from Louisiana has discovered that to “keep” means both “to record” and “to preserve.” But can you give this, or any other word in the English language, two distinct and independent meanings at the same time, as applied to the same subject? I think not. From the imperfection of human language, from the impossibility of having appropriate words to express every idea, the same word, as applied to different subjects, has a variety of significations. As applied to any one subject, it cannot, at the same time, convey two distinct meanings. In the Constitution it must mean either “to write down,” or “to preserve.” It cannot have both significations. Let Senators, then, take their choice. If it signifies “to write down,” as it unquestionably does, what becomes of the constitutional injunction to preserve? The truth is, that the Constitution has not provided what shall be done with the manuscript journal, after it has served the purposes for which it was called into existence. When it has been published to the people of the United States, for whose use it was ordered to be kept; after it has thus been perpetuated, and they have been furnished with the means of judging of the public conduct of their public servants, it ceases to be an object of the least importance. Whether it be thrown into the garret of the Capitol with other useless lumber, or be destroyed, is a matter of no public interest. It has probably never once been referred to in the history of our Government. If it should ever be determined to be a violation of the Constitution to obliterate or destroy this manuscript journal, it must be upon different principles from those which have been urged in this debate. My own impression is, that as the framers of the Constitution have directed us to keep a journal, a constructive duty may be implied from this command, which would forbid us to obliterate or destroy it. Under this impression, I should vote, as I did twenty years ago, in the Legislature of Pennsylvania, against any proposition actually to expunge any part of the journal. But waiving this unprofitable discussion, let us proceed to the real point in controversy.

Is any such proceeding as that of actually expunging the journal, proposed by the resolution of the Senator from Missouri? I answer, no such thing. If the Constitution had, in express terms, directed us to record and to preserve a journal of our proceedings, there is nothing in the resolution now before us which would be inconsistent with such a provision.

Is the drawing of a black line around the resolution of the Senate, of March, 3091834, to obliterate or deface it? On the contrary, is it not to render it more conspicuous,—to place it in bold relief,—to give it a prominence in the public view, beyond any other proceeding of this body, in past, and I trust, in all future time. If the argument of Senators were, not that we have no power to obliterate; but that the Senate possessed no power to render one portion of the journal more conspicuous than another, it would have had much greater force. Why, sir, by means of this very proceeding, that portion of our journal upon which it operates will be rescued from a slumber which would otherwise have been eternal, and, fac-similes of the original resolution, without a word or a letter defaced, will be circulated over the whole Union.

But, sir, this resolution also directs that across the face of the condemnatory resolution there shall be written by the Secretary, “Expunged by the order of the Senate this —— day of ——, in the year of our Lord 1837.”

Will this obliterate any part of the original resolution? If it does, the duty of the Secretary will be performed in a very bungling manner. No such thing is intended. It would be easy to remove every scruple from every mind upon this subject, by amending the resolution of the Senator from Missouri, so as to direct the Secretary to perform his duty in such a manner as not to obliterate any part of the condemnatory resolution. Such a direction, however, appears to me to be wholly unnecessary. The nature of the whole proceeding is very plain. We now adopt a resolution, expressing our strong reprobation of the original resolution; and for this purpose we use the word “expunged,” as the strongest term which we can apply. We then direct our Secretary to draw black lines around it, and place such a reference to our proceedings of this day upon its face, that in all time to come, whoever may inspect this portion of our journal, will be pointed at once to the record of its condemnation. What lawyer has not observed upon the margin of the judgment docket, if the original judgment has been removed to a superior court, and there reversed, a minute of such reversal? In our editions of the statutes, have we not all noted the repeal of any of them, which may have taken place at a subsequent period? Who ever heard, in the one case or the other, that this was obliterating or destroying the record, or the book? So in this case, we make a mere reference to our future proceeding upon the face of the resolution, instead of the margin. Suppose we should only repeal the obnoxious resolution, and direct such a reference to be made upon its face? Would any Senator contend that this would be an obliteration of the journal?

But it has been contended that the word expunge is not the appropriate word; and we have wrested it from its true signification, in applying it to the present case. Even if this allegation were correct, the answer would be at hand. You might then convict us of bad taste, but not of a violation of the Constitution. On the face of the resolution we have stated distinctly what we mean. We have directed the Secretary in what manner he shall understand it, and we have excluded the idea that it is our intention to obliterate or to destroy the journal.

310But I shall contend that the word expunge is the appropriate word, and that there is not another in the English language so precisely adapted to convey our meaning. I shall show, from the highest literary and parliamentary authorities, that the word has acquired a signification entirely distinct from that of actual obliteration. Let me proceed immediately to this task. After citing my authorities, I shall proceed with the argument. First, then, for those of a literary character. I read from Crabbe’s Synonymes, page 140; and every Senator will admit that this is a work of established reputation. In speaking of the use of the word expunge, the author says: “When the contents of a book are in part rejected, they are aptly described as being expunged; in this manner the free-thinking sects expunge everything from the Bible which does not suit their purpose, or they expunge from their creed what does not humor their passions.” The idea that an actual obliteration was intended in these cases would be manifestly absurd. In the same page there is a quotation from Mr. Burke to illustrate the meaning of this word. “I believe,” says he, “that any person who was of age to take a part in public concerns forty years ago (if the intermediate space were expunged from his memory), could hardly credit his senses when he should hear that an army of two hundred thousand men was kept up in this island.” I shall now cite Mr. Jefferson as a literary authority. He has often been referred to on this floor as a standard in politics. For this high authority, I am indebted to my friend from Louisiana (Mr. Nicholas). In the original draft of the declaration of independence, he uses the word expunge in the following manner: “Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to expunge their former systems of government.” Although the word alter was substituted for expunge, I presume upon the ground that this was too strong a term, yet the change does not detract from the literary authority of the precedent.—Jefferson’s Correspondence, &c., 1st volume, page 17.

I presume that I have shown that the word expunge has acquired a distinct metaphorical meaning in our literature, which excludes the idea of actual obliteration. If I should proceed one step further, and prove that in legislative proceedings it has acquired the very same signification, I shall then have fully established my position. For this purpose I cite, first, “the Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Federal Convention.” In page 118, we find the following entries: “On motion to expunge the clause of the qualification as to age, it was carried—ten States against one.” Again: “On the clause respecting the ineligibility to any other office, it was moved that the words ‘by any particular State,’ be expunged—four States for, five against, and two divided.” So page 119: “The last blank was filled up with one year, and carried—eight ayes, two noes, one divided.”

“Mr. Pinckney moved to expunge the clause—agreed to, nem. con.”nem. con.” Again: “Mr. Butler moved to expunge the clause of the stipends—lost, seven against, three for, one divided.” Again, in page 157: “Mr. Pinckney moved that that part of the clause which disqualifies a person from holding an office in 311the State be expunged, because the first and best characters in a State may thereby be deprived of a seat in the national council.”

“Question put to strike out the words moved for and carried—eight ayes, three noes.”

It will thus be perceived that in the proceedings of the very convention which formed the Constitution under which we are now governed, the word expunge was often used in its figurative sense. It will certainly not be asserted, or even intimated, by any Senator here, that when these motions to expunge prevailed, the words of the original draft of the Constitution were actually obliterated or defaced. The meaning is palpable. These provisions were merely rejected; not actually blotted out.

But I shall now produce a precedent precisely in point. It presents itself in the proceedings of the Senate of Massachusetts, and refers to the famous resolution of that body adopted on the 15th day of June, 1813, in relation to the capture of the British vessel Peacock; denouncing the late war, and declaring that it was not becoming in a moral and religious people, to express any approbation of military or naval exploits which were not immediately connected with the defence of our seacoast. Massachusetts adopted the following resolution:

“Resolved“Resolved That the aforesaid resolve of the fifteenth day of June, A. D. 1813, and the preamble thereof, be, and the same are hereby, expunged from the journals of the Senate.”

It is self-evident that, in this case, not the least intention existed of defacing the old manuscript journal. The word “expunge” was used in its figurative signification, just as it is in the case before us, to express the strongest reprobation of the former proceeding. That proceeding was to be expunged solely by force of the subsequent resolution, and not by any actual obliteration. There never was any actual obliteration of the journal.

Judging, then, from the highest English authorities, from the works of celebrated authors and statesmen, and from the proceedings of legislative bodies, is it not evident that the word expunge has acquired a distinct meaning, altogether inconsistent with any actual obliteration?

All that we have heard about defacing and destroying the journal are mere phantoms, which have been conjured up to terrify the timid. We intend no such thing. We only mean, most strongly, to express our conviction that the condemnatory resolution ought never to have found a place on the journal. If more authorities were wanting, I might refer to the Legislature of Virginia. The present expunging resolution is in exact conformity with their instructions to their Senators. As a matter of taste, I cannot say that I much admire their plan, though I entertain no doubt but that it is perfectly constitutional. That State is highly literary; and I think I have established that their Legislature, when they used the word expunge, without intending thereby to effect an actual obliteration of the journal, justly appreciated the meaning of the language which they employed.

The word expunge is, in my opinion, the only one which we could have 312used, clearly and forcibly to accomplish our purpose. Even if it had not been sanctioned by practice as a parliamentary word, we ought ourselves to have first established the precedent. It suits the case precisely. If you rescind, reverse, or repeal a resolution; you thereby admit that it once had some constitutional or legal authority. If you declare it to have been null and void from the beginning; this is but the expression of your own opinion that such was the fact. This word expunge acts upon the resolution itself. It at once goes to its origin, and destroys its legal existence as if it had never been. It does not merely kill, but it annihilates.

Parliamentary practice has changed the meaning of several other words from their primitive signification, in a similar manner with that of the word expunge. The original signification of the word rescind is “to cut off.” Usage has made it mean, in reference to a law or resolution, to abrogate or repeal it. We every day hear motions “to strike out.” What is the literal meaning of this expression? The question may be best answered by asking another. If I were to request you to strike out a line from your letter, and you were willing to comply with my request, what would be your conduct? You would run your pen through it immediately. You would literally strike it out. Yet what use do we make of this phrase every day in our legislative proceedings? If I make a motion to strike out a section from a bill and it prevails, the Secretary encloses the printed copy of it in black lines, and makes a note on the margin that it has been stricken out. The original he never touches. Why then should not the word expunge, without obliterating the proceeding to which it is directed, signify to destroy as if it never had existed?

After all that has been said, I think I need scarcely again recur to the Pennsylvania precedent. It is evident from the whole of that proceeding that an actual expunging of the journal was intended, if it had not already been executed. I have no recollection whatever of the circumstances, but I am under a perfect conviction, from the face of the journal, that such was the nature of the case. I should vote now as I did then, after a period of more than twenty years. Both my vote, and the motion which I subsequently made upon that occasion, evidently proceeded upon this principle. The question arose in this manner, as it appears from the journal. On the 10th of February, 1816, “The Speaker informed the House that a constitutional question being involved in a decision by him yesterday, on a motion to expunge certain proceedings from the journal, he was desirous of having the opinion of the House on that decision,” viz: “that a majority can expunge from the journal proceedings in which the yeas and nays have not been called.” Now, as no trace whatever appears upon the journal of the preceding day of the motion to which the Speaker refers, it is highly probable, nay, it is almost certain, that the proceedings had been actually expunged before he asked the advice of the House.

No man feels with more sensibility, the necessity which compels him to perform an unkind act towards his brother Senators than myself; but we have 313now arrived at that point when imperious duty demands that we should either adopt this expunging resolution or abandon it forever. Already much precious time has been employed in its discussion. The moment has arrived when we must act. Senators in the opposition console themselves with the belief that posterity will do them justice, should it be denied to them by the present generation. They place their own names in the one scale and ours in the other, and flatter themselves with the hope that before that tribunal at least, their weight will preponderate. For my own part, I am willing to abide the issue. I am willing to be judged for the vote which I shall give to-day, not only by the present, but by future generations, should my obscure name ever be mentioned in after times. After the passions and prejudices of the present moment shall have subsided, and the impartial historian shall come to record the proceedings of this day, he will say that the distinguished men who passed the resolution condemning the President were urged on to the act by a desire to occupy the high places in the Government. That an ambition noble in itself, but not wisely regulated, had obscured their judgment, and impelled them to the adoption of a measure unjust, illegal, and unconstitutional. That in order to vindicate both the Constitution and the President, we were justified in passing this expunging resolution, and thus stamping the former proceeding with our strongest disapprobation.

I rejoice in the belief that this promises to be one of the last highly exciting questions of the present day. During the period of General Jackson’s civil administration, what has he not done for the American people? During this period he has had more difficult and dangerous questions to settle, both at home and abroad,—questions which aroused more intensely the passions of men,—than any of his predecessors. They are now all happily ended, except the one which we shall this day bring to a close,

The country now enjoys abundant prosperity at home, whilst it is respected and admired by foreign nations. Although the waves may yet be in some agitation from the effect of the storms through which we have passed, yet I think I can perceive the rainbow of peace extending itself across the firmament of Heaven.

Should the next administration pursue the same course of policy with the present—should it dispense equal justice to all portions and all interests of the Union, without sacrificing any—should it be conducted with prudence and with firmness, and I doubt not but that this will be the case—we shall hereafter enjoy comparative peace and quiet in our day. This will be the precious fruit of the energy, the toils, and the wisdom of the pilot who has conducted us in safety through the storms of his tempestuous administration.

I am now prepared for the question. I shall vote for this resolution; but not cheerfully. I regret the necessity which exists for passing it; but I believe that imperious duty demands its adoption. If I know my own heart, 314I can truly say that I am not actuated by any desire to obtain a miserable, petty, personal triumph, either for myself, or for the President of the United States, over my associates upon this floor.

I am now ready to record my vote, and thus, in the opprobrious language of Senators in the opposition, to become one of the executioners of the condemnatory resolution.

FIRST INTRODUCTION OF THE SUBJECT OF SLAVERY IN THE SENATE, DURING THE ADMINISTRATION OF JACKSON—PETITIONS FOR ITS ABOLITION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA—THE RIGHT OF PETITION VINDICATED BY BUCHANAN—INCENDIARY PUBLICATIONS—ADMISSION OF MICHIGAN INTO THE UNION—STATUARY FOR THE CAPITOL—AFFAIRS OF TEXAS.

In the latter part of the second administration of General Jackson, the subject of slavery began to be pressed upon the attention of Congress by petitions for its abolition in the District of Columbia.

In a future chapter will be traced the origin and progress of the anti-slavery agitation in the Northern States. At present, it is only needful for me to describe Mr. Buchanan’s course as a Senator, on the different aspects of this subject which arose during the second administration of General Jackson. On the 7th of January, 1836, two petitions were presented in the Senate, signed by citizens of Ohio, praying for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. Mr. Calhoun demanded that they should be read, and, after the reading, he objected to their being received. Mr. Buchanan made the following remarks in replying to Mr. Calhoun:

Mr. Buchanan said that, for two or three weeks past, there had been in his possession a memorial from the Cain Quarterly Meeting of the religious Society of Friends, in the State of Pennsylvania, requesting Congress to abolish slavery and the slave trade within the District of Columbia. This memorial was not a printed form—its language was not that in established use for such documents. It did not proceed from those desperate fanatics who have been endeavoring to disturb the security and peace of society in the Southern States, by the distribution of incendiary pamphlets and papers. Far different is the truth. It emanates from a society of Christians, whose object had always been to promote peace and good-will among men, and who have been the efficient and persevering friends of humanity in every clime. To 316their untiring efforts, more than to those of any other denomination of Christians, we owe the progress which has been made in abolishing the African slave trade throughout the world. This memorial was their testimony against the existence of slavery. This testimony they had borne for more than a century. Of the purity of their motives, there could not be a question.

He had omitted to present this memorial at an earlier day, because he had thought that, on its presentation at the proper time, much good might be done. He had believed that, by private consultations, some resolution might be devised upon this exciting subject which would obtain the unanimous vote of the Senate. If there was one man in that body not willing to adopt a proper measure to calm the troubled spirit of the South, he did not know him. This, in his judgment, would be the best mode of accomplishing the object which we all desire to accomplish. The proper course to attain this result was, in his opinion, to refer the subject, either to a select committee, or to the Committee for the District of Columbia. They would examine it in all its bearings, they would ascertain the views and feelings of individual Senators, and he had no doubt they would be able to recommend some measure to the Senate on which they could all unite. This would have a most happy effect upon the country. He had intended, upon presenting the memorial which he had in charge, to have suggested this mode of proceeding. He regretted, therefore, he had not known that his friend from Ohio (Mr. Morris) was in possession of memorials having a similar object in view. If he had been informed of it, he should have endeavored to persuade him to wait until Monday next, when he (Mr. B.) would have been prepared to pursue the course he had indicated. But the question has now been forced upon us. No (said Mr. B.), it has not been forced upon me, because I am glad to have a suitable occasion of expressing my opinions upon the subject.

The memorial which I have in my possession is entitled to the utmost respect, from the character of the memorialists. As I entirely dissent from the opinion which they express, that we ought to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, I feel it to be due to them, to myself, and to the Senate, respectfully, but firmly, to state the reasons why I cannot advocate their views or acquiesce in their conclusions.

If any one principle of constitutional law can, at this day, be considered as settled, it is, that Congress have no right, no power, over the question of slavery within those States where it exists. The property of the master in his slave existed in full force before the Federal Constitution was adopted. It was a subject which then belonged, as it still belongs, to the exclusive jurisdiction of the several States. These States, by the adoption of the Constitution, never yielded to the General Government any right to interfere with the question. It remains where it was previous to the establishment of our confederacy.

The Constitution has, in the clearest terms, recognized the right of property in slaves. It prohibits any State into which a slave may have fled from passing any law to discharge him from slavery, and declares that he shall be 317delivered up by the authorities of such State to his master. Nay, more, it makes the existence of slavery the foundation of political power, by giving to those States within which it exists representatives in Congress, not only in proportion to the whole number of free persons, but also in proportion to three-fifths of the number of slaves.

An occasion very fortunately arose in the first Congress to settle this question forever. The Society for the abolition of Slavery in Pennsylvania brought it before that Congress by a memorial which was presented on the 11th day of February, 1790. After the subject had been discussed for several days, and after solemn deliberation, the House of Representatives, in Committee of the Whole, on the 23d day of March, 1790, resolved “That Congress have no authority to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them within any of the States; it remaining with the several States alone to provide any regulations therein, which humanity and true policy may require.”

I have thought it would be proper to present this decision, which was made almost half a century ago, distinctly to the view of the American people. The language of the resolution is clear, precise, and definite. It leaves the question where the Constitution left it, and where, so far as I am concerned, it ever shall remain. The Constitution of the United States never would have been called into existence,—instead of the innumerable blessings which have flowed from our happy Union, we should have had anarchy, jealousy, and civil war among the sister Republics of which our confederacy is composed, had not the free States abandoned all control over this question. For one, whatever may be my opinions upon the abstract question of slavery, (and I am free to confess they are those of the people of Pennsylvania,) I shall never attempt to violate this fundamental compact. The Union will be dissolved, and incalculable evils will arise from its ashes, the moment any such attempt is seriously made by the free States in Congress.

What, then, are the circumstances under which these memorials are now presented? A number of fanatics, led on by foreign incendiaries, have been scattering “arrows, firebrands, and death” throughout the Southern States. The natural tendency of their publications is to produce dissatisfaction and revolt among the slaves, and to incite their wild passions to vengeance. All history, as well as the present condition of the slaves, proves that there can be no danger of the final result of a servile war. But, in the mean time, what dreadful scenes may be enacted before such an insurrection, which would spare neither age nor sex, could be suppressed! What agony of mind must be suffered, especially by the gentler sex, in consequence of these publications! Many a mother clasps her infant to her bosom when she retires to rest, under dreadful apprehensions that she may be aroused from her slumbers by the savage yells of the slaves by whom she is surrounded. These are the works of the abolitionists. That their motives may be honest I do not doubt, but their zeal is without knowledge. The history of the human race 318presents numerous examples of ignorant enthusiasts, the purity of whose intentions cannot be doubted, who have spread devastation and bloodshed over the face of the earth.

These fanatics, instead of benefiting the slaves who are the objects of their regard, have inflicted serious injury upon them. Self-preservation is the first law of nature. The masters, for the sake of their wives and children, for the sake of all that is near and dear to them on earth, must tighten the reins of authority over their slaves. They must thus counteract the efforts of the abolitionists. The slaves are denied many indulgences which their masters would otherwise cheerfully grant. They must be kept in such a state of bondage as effectually to prevent their rising. These are the injurious effects produced by the abolitionists upon the slave himself. Whilst, on the one hand, they render his condition miserable, by presenting to his mind vague notions of freedom never to be realized, on the other, they make it doubly miserable, by compelling the master to be severe, in order to prevent any attempts at insurrection. They thus render it impossible for the master to treat his slave according to the dictates of his heart and his feelings.

Besides, do not the abolitionists perceive that the spirit which is thus roused must protract to an indefinite period the emancipation of the slave? The necessary effect of their efforts is to render desperate those to whom the power of emancipation really belongs. I believe most conscientiously, in whatever light this subject can be viewed, that the best interests of the slave require that the question should be left, where the Constitution has left it, to the slaveholding States themselves, without foreign interference.

This being a true statement of the case, as applied to the States where slavery exists, what is now asked by these memorialists? That in this District of ten miles square—a District carved out of two slaveholding States, and surrounded by them on all sides—slavery shall be abolished. What would be the effects of granting their request? You would thus erect a citadel in the very heart of these States, upon a territory which they have ceded to you for a far different purpose, from which abolitionists and incendiaries could securely attack the peace and safety of their citizens. You establish a spot within the slaveholding States which would be a city of refuge for run-away slaves. You create by law a central point from which trains of gunpowder may be securely laid, extending into the surrounding States, which may, at any moment, produce a fearful and destructive explosion. By passing such a law, you introduce the enemy into the very bosom of these two States, and afford him every opportunity to produce a servile insurrection. Is there any reasonable man who can for one moment suppose that Virginia and Maryland would have ceded the District of Columbia to the United States, if they had entertained the slightest idea that Congress would ever use it for any such purpose? They ceded it for your use, for your convenience, and not for their own destruction. When slavery ceases to exist, under the laws of Virginia and Maryland, then, and not till then, ought it to be abolished in the District of Columbia.

319(Mr. B. said that, notwithstanding these were his opinions, he could not vote for the motion of the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Calhoun) not to receive these memorials. He would not at present proceed to state his reasons, still hoping the Senate could yet agree upon some course which would prove satisfactory to all. With this view, he moved that the whole subject be postponed until Monday next.)

When the following Monday came (January 11th, 1836), Mr. Buchanan said:

He was now about to present the memorial of the Caln Quarterly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends in Pennsylvania, requesting Congress to abolish slavery and the slave trade in the District of Columbia. On this subject he had expressed his opinions to the Senate on Thursday last, and he had no disposition to repeat them at present. He would say, however, that on a review of these opinions, he was perfectly satisfied with them. All he should now say was, that the memorial which he was about to present was perfectly respectful in its language. Indeed, it could not possibly be otherwise, considering the respectable source from which it emanated.

It would become his duty to make some motion in regard to this memorial. On Thursday last, he had suggested that in his judgment the best course to pursue was to refer these memorials to a selected committee, or to the committee for the District of Columbia. He still thought so; but he now found that insurmountable obstacles presented themselves to such a reference.

In presenting this memorial and in exerting himself so far as in him lay, to secure for it that respectful reception by the Senate which it deserved, he should do his duty to the memorialists. After it should receive this reception, he should have a duty to perform to himself and to his country. He was clearly of opinion, for the reasons he had stated on Thursday last, that Congress ought not at this time to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and that it was our duty promptly to place this exciting question at rest. He should, therefore, move that the memorial be read, and that the prayer of the memorialists be rejected.

At a subsequent day (January 19th), the pending question was, on the reception of the Memorial of the Pennsylvania Quakers, or Friends; and on this question Mr. Buchanan said:

It was not now his intention to repeat anything he had said on a former occasion in regard to the abolition of slavery in this District. The remarks which he had then made, after much reflection, still met his entire approbation. He would not now have alluded to them were it not for the misapprehension which still appeared to prevail upon this floor in regard to the state of Northern feeling on this subject.

Those remarks had, he believed, been more extensively circulated throughout Pennsylvania than any which he had ever made upon any occasion. If 320they had been censured anywhere in that State, by any party, the fact was unknown to him. On the contrary, he had strong reasons to believe they had been received with general approbation.

He was not in the habit of using private letters to sustain any position which he might take upon this floor or elsewhere. He would say, however, that since he had presented the memorial now the subject of consideration before the Senate, he had received another memorial of a similar character from the city of Philadelphia. This memorial had been transmitted to him by two gentlemen whose name and character would be the strongest guaranty for the truth of their assertions, did he feel himself at liberty to make them known to the Senate. He would not even have alluded to their letter, but that it related to a public subject in which the country was deeply interested, and accompanied the memorial which they had requested him to present to the Senate. The following is an extract from this letter:

“Although we have not the pleasure of thy acquaintance, permit us on this occasion to express our satisfaction with thy remarks in the Senate some weeks since, in which the opinion was forcibly sustained that no sensible man at the North would advocate the right of Congress to interfere with the subject of slavery in the slave States themselves. We are fully persuaded this is the fact in our neighborhood.

“In a pretty extensive acquaintance with the friends of abolition in this city, we unhesitatingly declare that we have never heard such an opinion advocated, and we defy our opponents to point out a man that has ever circulated any publication calculated to produce discord in the Southern States.

“But whilst we fully recognize this view, we are aware that the Constitution guaranties to us the right of memorializing Congress on any subject connected with the welfare of the District of Columbia, and we intend ever to exercise it in the spirit of charity and good-feeling.”

Mr. B. believed this statement to be true. Although all the people of Pennsylvania were opposed to slavery in the abstract, yet they would not sanction any attempts to excite the slaves of the Southern States to insurrection and bloodshed. Whilst they knew their own rights, and would maintain them, they never would invade the rights of others which had been secured by the Federal Constitution. He was proud to say this had always been the character and the conduct of the State which he had in part the honor to represent in her relations with her sister States.

He felt himself justified in declaring that Pennsylvania was perfectly sound upon this question. Abolitionists there may be in Pennsylvania, but it had never been his fate to meet a single one. If we have a man amongst us who desires, by the circulation of incendiary publications and pictures throughout the slaveholding States, to produce a servile insurrection, and thus to abolish slavery, he knew him not. In the language of the letter he had just read, whatever might be the case further north, he might defy any gentleman to point out a man in Pennsylvania who has ever circulated any publication calculated to produce discord in the Southern States.

321He had heard within the last few days that emissaries were now traveling throughout Pennsylvania for the purpose of propagating the doctrine of immediate abolition. He thought he might venture to predict that they would fail in their attempts.

Although he did not mean at present to discuss the general question, yet the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Preston) must permit him to say that, in his remarks of yesterday, he had done much to dignify the cause of abolition, and to give its supporters a character which they did not deserve.

Mr. B. was not so well able to judge what effect those remarks might produce on the South; but he protested against the accuracy of the statements which that gentleman had made in regard to the condition of Northern feeling on this subject. His information had been incorrect. If the gloomy coloring of the picture which he had presented could be considered any thing but a fancy sketch, the South might believe that the time had arrived when it would be their duty to decide whether it was not necessary to dissolve this Union, for the protection of their rights. Mr. B. thought far otherwise. This crisis had not arrived, and, he trusted, never would arrive. The force of public opinion will prostrate this fanatical and dangerous spirit. He must say, however, that the enemies of the cause of abolition at the North had a right to expect that gentlemen from the South would not adopt a course which might tend to increase our difficulties. They ought to permit us to judge for ourselves in this matter, and to throw no obstacles in our way which the nature of the subject does not necessarily present.

Let it be once understood that the sacred right of petition and the cause of the abolitionists must rise or must fall together, and the consequences may be fatal. I would, therefore, warn Southern gentlemen to reflect seriously in what situation they place their friends in the North, by insisting that this petition shall not be received.

We have just as little right to interfere with slavery in the South, as we have to touch the right of petition. Whence is this right derived? Can a republican government exist without it? Man might as well attempt to exist without breathing the vital air. No government possessing any of the elements of liberty has ever existed, or can ever exist, unless its citizens or subjects enjoy this right. From the very structure of your Government, from the very establishment of a Senate and House of Representatives, the right of petition naturally and necessarily resulted. A representative republic, established by the people, without the people having the right to make their wants and their wishes known to their servants, would be the most palpablepalpable absurdity. This right, even if it were not expressly sanctioned by the Constitution, would result from its very nature. It could not be controlled by any action of Congress, or either branch of it. If the Constitution had been silent upon the subject, the only consequence would be, that it would stand in the very front rank of those rights of the people which are expressly guarantied to them by the ninth article of the amendments to that instrument, inserted from abundant but necessary caution. I shall read this 322article. It declares that “the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” It would, without any express provision, have stood in the same rank with the liberty of speech and of the press, and have been entirely beyond the control of the Government. It is a right which could not have been infringed without extinguishing the vital spirit of our institutions. If any had been so bold as to attempt to violate it, it would have been a conclusive argument to say to them that the Constitution has given you no power over the right of petition, and you dare not touch it.

The Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Calhoun) has justly denominated the amendments to the Constitution as our Bill of Rights. The jealousy which the States entertained of federal power brought these amendments into existence. They supposed that, in future times, Congress might desire to extend the powers of this Government, and usurp the rights which were not granted them by the people of the States. From a provident caution, they have, in express terms, denied to Congress every sort of control over religion; over the freedom of speech and of the press; and over the right of petition. The first article of the amendments declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Now, sir, what is the first position taken by the Senator from South Carolina against receiving this memorial? I desire to quote him with perfect accuracy. He says that the Constitution prohibits Congress from passing any law to abridge the right of petition; that, to refuse to receive this petition, would not be to pass any such law, and that therefore, the Constitution would not be violated by such a refusal.

Does not the Senator perceive that, if this doctrine can be maintained, the right of petition is gone forever? It is a mere empty name. The Senate would possess the power of controlling it at their will and pleasure. No matter what may be the prayer of any petition; no matter how just may be the grievances of the people demanding redress, we may refuse to hear their complaints, and inform them that this is one of our prerogatives; because, to refuse to receive their petition is not the passage of a law abridging their right to petition. How can the gentleman escape from this consequence? Is the Senate to be the arbiter? Are we to decide what the people may petition for, and what they shall not bring before us? Is the servant to dictate to the master? Such a construction can never be the true one.

The most striking feature of this argument is, that the very article of the Constitution which was intended to guard the right of petition with the most jealous care is thus perverted from its original intention, and made the instrument of destroying this very right. What we cannot do by law, what is beyond the power of both Houses of Congress and the President, according to the gentleman’s argument, the Senate can of itself accomplish. The 323Senate alone, if his argument be correct, may abridge the right of petition, acting in its separate capacity, though it could not, as one branch of the Legislature, consent to any law which would confer upon itself this power.

What is the true history and character of this article of the Constitution? In the thirteenth year of the reign of that “royal scoundrel” Charles the Second, as the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Leigh) has justly denominated him, an act of Parliament was passed, abridging the right of petition. It declared that “no petition to the king or either House of Parliament, for any alteration in Church or State, shall be signed by above twenty persons, unless the matter thereof be approved by three justices of the peace, or the major part of the grand jury in the county; and in London by the lord mayor, aldermen, and common council; nor shall any petition be presented by more than ten persons at a time.” Each Senator will readily perceive that the right of petition was thus laid almost entirely prostrate at the feet of the sovereign. The justices of the peace, and the sheriffs who selected the grand juries, were his creatures, appointed and removed at his pleasure. Out of the city of London, without their consent, no petition for an alteration in Church or State could be signed by more than twenty individuals. At the revolution of 1688, the Bill of Rights guarantied to English subjects the right of petitioning the king, but the courts of justice decided that it did not repeal the statute of the second Charles. This statute still remained in force at the adoption of the federal Constitution. Such was the state of the law in that country, from which we have derived most of our institutions, when this amendment to the Constitution was adopted.

Although the Constitution, as it came from the hands of its framers, gave to Congress no power to touch the right of petition, yet some of the States to whom it was submitted for ratification, apprehending the time might arrive when Congress would be disposed to act like the British Parliament, expressly withdrew the subject from our control. Not satisfied with the fact that no power over it had been granted by the Constitution, they determined to prohibit us in express terms from ever exercising such a power. This is the true history of the first article of our Bill of Rights.

Let me put another case to the Senator from South Carolina. Some years since, as a manager on the part of the House of Representatives, I had the honor to appear before this body, then sitting as a high court of impeachment. In that case, the accused, when sitting as a district judge of the United States, had brought an attorney of his court before him by an attachment for contempt, and without any trial by jury had convicted him of a libel, and sentenced him to imprisonment. The judge was acquitted; and at the moment I thought this decision had placed the freedom of the press in danger. If the sedition law were clearly unconstitutional, and nobody now doubts it; if Congress could not confer upon the courts of the United States, by express enactment, any question over the power of libel, I thought it monstrous that a judge, without the intervention of a jury, under highly excited feelings, should be permitted to try and to punish libels committed against himself 324according to his will and pleasure. My apprehensions were of but short duration. A few days after the acquittal of this judge, the Senate, without one dissenting voice, passed a bill, not to create a new law, but declaratory of what the old law, or rather what the Constitution was, under which no federal judge will ever again dare to punish a libel as a contempt. The constitutional provision in favor of the liberty of the press was thus redeemed from judicial construction.

Now, sir, we must all admit that libels of the grossest character are daily published against the Senate and its individual members. Suppose an attempt should be made to bring one of these libelers before us, and to punish him for a contempt, would the gentleman from South Carolina contend that we might do so without violating the Constitution, and that we might convict him and sentence him to imprisonment, because such a conviction and sentence would not be the passage of a law abridging the freedom of the press? The gentleman’s excited feelings upon the subject of abolition have led his judgment astray. No construction can be correct which would lead to such palpable absurdities.

The very language of this amendment itself contains the strongest recognition of the right of petition. In the clearest terms, it presupposes its existence. How can you abridge a right which has no previous existence? On this question I deem the argument of my friend from Georgia (Mr. King) conclusive. The amendment assumes that the people have the right to petition for the redress of grievances, and places it beyond the power of Congress to touch this sacred right. The truth is, that the authors of the amendment believed this to be a Government of such tremendous power that it was necessary, in express terms, to withdraw from its grasp their most essential rights. The right of every citizen to worship his God according to the dictates of his own conscience; his right freely to speak, and freely to print and publish his thoughts to the world; and his right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, are placed entirely beyond the control of the Congress of the United States, or either of its branches. There may they ever remain! These fundamental principles of liberty are companions. They rest upon the same foundation. They must stand or must fall together. They will be maintained so long as American liberty shall endure.

The next argument advanced by the gentleman is, that we are not bound to receive this petition, because to grant its prayer would be unconstitutional? In this argument I shall not touch the question, whether Congress possess the power to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia or not. Suppose they do not, can the gentleman maintain the position, that we are authorized by the Constitution to refuse to receive a petition from the people, because we may deem the object of it unconstitutional? Whence is any such restriction of the right of petition derived? Who gave it to us? Is it to be found in the Constitution? The people are not constitutional lawyers; but they feel oppression, and know when they are aggrieved. They present their complaints to us in the form of a petition. I ask, by what authority can we 325refuse to receive it? They have a right to spread their wishes and their wants before us, and to ask for redress. We are bound respectfully to consider their request; and the best answer which we can give them is, that they have not conferred upon us the power, under the Constitution of the United States, to grant them the relief which they desire. On any other principle we may first decide that we have no power over a particular subject, and then refuse to hear the petitions of the people in relation to it. We would thus place the constitutional right of our constituents to petition at the mercy of our own discretion.

Again, sir, we possess the power of originating amendments to the Constitution. Although, therefore, we may not be able to grant the petitioners relief, such a petition may induce us to exercise this power, and to ask for a new grant of authority from the States.

The gentleman’s third proposition was, that we are not bound to receive this petition, because it is no grievance to the citizens of any of the States, that slavery exists in this District. But who are to be the judges, in the first instance, whether the people are aggrieved or not? Is it those who suffer, or fancy they suffer, or the Senate? If we are to decide when they ought to feel aggrieved, and when they ought to be satisfied, if the tribunal to whom their petitions are addressed may refuse to receive them, because, in their opinion, there was no just cause of complaint, the right of petition is destroyed. It would be but a poor answer to their petitions to tell them they ought not to have felt aggrieved, that they are mistaken, and that, therefore, their complaints would not be received by their servants.

I may be asked, is there no case in which I would be willing to refuse to receive a petition? I answer that it must be a very strong one indeed to justify such a refusal. There is one exception, however, which results from the very nature of the right itself. Neither the body addressed nor any of its members must be insulted, under the pretext of exercising this right. It must not be perverted from its purpose, and be made the instrument of degrading the body to which the petition is addressed. Such a petition would be in fraud of the right itself, and the necessary power of self-protection and self-preservation inherent in every legislative body confers upon it the authority of defending itself against direct insults presented in this or any other form. Beyond this exception I would not go; and it is solely for the purpose of self-protection, in my opinion, that the rules of the Senate enable any of its members to raise the question, whether a petition shall be received or not. If the rule has any other object in view, it is a violation of the Constitution.

I would confine this exception within the narrowest limits. The acts of the body addressed may be freely canvassed by the people, and they may be shown to be unjust or unconstitutional. These may be the very reasons why the petition is presented. “To speak his mind is every freeman’s right.” They may and they ought to express themselves with that manly independence which belongs to American citizens. To exclude their petition, it must 326appear palpable that an insult to the body was intended, and not a redress of grievances.

Extreme cases have been put by the Senator from South Carolina. Ridiculous or extravagant petitions may be presented; though I should think that scarcely a sane man could be found in this country who would ask Congress to abolish slavery in the State of Georgia. In such a case I would receive the petition, and consign it at once to that merited contempt which it would deserve. The Constitution secures the right of being heard by petition to every citizen; and I would not abridge it because he happened to be a fool.

The proposition is almost too plain for argument, that if the people have a constitutional right to petition, a corresponding duty is imposed upon us to receive their petitions. From the very nature of things, rights and duties are reciprocal. The human mind cannot conceive of the one without the other. They are relative terms. If the people have a right to command, it is the duty of their servants to obey. If I have a right to a sum of money, it is the duty of my debtor to pay it to me. If the people have a right to petition their representatives, it is our duty to receive their petition.

This question was solemnly determined by the Senate more than thirty years ago. Neither before nor since that time, so far as I can learn, has the general right of petition ever been called in question, until the motion now under consideration was made by the Senator from South Carolina. Of course I do not speak of cases embraced within the exception which I have just stated. No Senator has ever contended that this is one of them. To prove my position, I shall read an extract from our journals. On Monday, the 21st January, 1805, “Mr. Logan presented a petition signed Thomas Morris, Clerk, in behalf of the meeting of the representatives of the people called Quakers, in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, etc., stating that the petitioners, from a sense of religious duty, had again come forward to plead the cause of their oppressed and degraded fellow-men of the African race; and, on the question, “Shall this petition be received?” it passed in the affirmative; yeas, 19; nays, 9.

“The yeas and nays being required by one-fifth of the Senators present, those who voted in the affirmative are—Messrs. Adams, Mass., Bayard, Del., Brown, Ky., Condict, N. J., Franklin, N. C., Hillhouse, Conn., Howland, R. I., Logan, Penn., Maclay, Penn., Mitchell, N. Y., Alcott, N. H., Pickering, Mass., Plumer, N. H., Smith, Ohio, Smith, Vt., Stone, N. C., Sumpter, S. C., White, Del., Worthington, Ohio.

“And those who voted in the negative are—Anderson, Tenn., Baldwin, Ga., Bradley, Vt., Cocke, Tenn., Jackson, Ga., Moore, Va., Smith, Md., Smith, N. Y., and Wright, Md.

“So the petition was read.”

The Senate will perceive that I have added to the names of the members of the Senate that of the States which they each represented. The Senator from South Carolina will see that, among those who, upon this occasion, sustained the right of petition, there is found the name of General Sumpter, his 327distinguished predecessor. I wish him also to observe that but seven Senators from slaveholding States voted against receiving the petition; although it was of a character well calculated to excite their hostile and jealous feelings.

The present, sir, is a real controversy between liberty and power. In my humble judgment, it is far the most important question which has been before the Senate since I have had the honor of occupying a seat in this body. It is a contest between those, however unintentionally, who desire to abridge the right of the people, in asking their servants for a redress of grievances, and those who desire to leave it, as the Constitution left it, free as the air. Petitions ought ever to find their way into the Senate without impediment; and I trust that the decision upon this question will result in the establishment of one of the dearest rights which a free people can enjoy.

Now, sir, why should the Senator from South Carolina urge the motion which he has made? I wish I could persuade him to withdraw it. We of the North honestly believe, and I feel confident he will not doubt our sincerity, that we cannot vote for his motion without violating our duty to God and to the country—without disregarding the oath which we have sworn, to support the Constitution. This is not the condition of those who advocate his motion. It is not pretended that the Constitution imposes any obligation upon them to vote for this motion. With them it is a question of mere expediency; with us, one of constitutional duty. I ask gentlemen of the South, for their own sake, as well as for that of their friends in the North, to vote against this motion. It will place us all in a false position, where neither their sentiments nor ours will be properly understood.

The people of the North are justly jealous of their rights and liberties. Among these, they hold the right of petition to be one of the most sacred character. I would say to the gentlemen of the South, why then will you array yourselves, without any necessity, against this right? You believe that we are much divided on the question of abolition; why, then, will you introduce another element of discord amongst us, which may do your cause much harm, and which cannot possibly do it any good? When you possess an impregnable fortress, if you will defend it, why take shelter in an outwork, where defeat is certain? Why select the very weakest position, one on which you will yourselves present a divided front to the enemy, when it is in your power to choose one on which you and we can all unite? You will thus afford an opportunity to the abolitionists at the North to form a false issue with your friends. You place us in such a condition that we cannot defend you, without infringing the sacred right of petition. Do you not perceive that the question of abolition may thus be indissolubly connected, in public estimation, with a cause which we can never abandon. If the abolitionists themselves had been consulted, I will venture to assert, they ought to have advised the very course which has been adopted by their greatest enemies.

The vote upon this unfortunate motion may do almost equal harm in the South. It may produce an impression there, that we who will vote against 328the motion are not friendly to the protection of their constitutional rights. It may arouse jealousy and suspicion, where none ought to exist; and may thus magnify a danger which has already been greatly exaggerated. In defending any great cause, it is always disastrous to take a position which cannot be maintained. Your forces thus become scattered and inefficient, and the enemy may obtain possession of the citadel whilst you are vainly attempting to defend an outpost. I am sorry, indeed, that this motion has been made.

I shall now proceed to defend my own motion from the attacks which have been made upon it. It has been equally opposed by both extremes. I have not found, upon the present occasion, the maxim to be true, that “in medio tutissimus ibis.” The Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Porter), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Webster), seem both to believe that little, if any, difference exists between the refusal to receive a petition, and the rejection of its prayer after it has been received. Indeed, the gentleman from Louisiana, whom I am happy to call my friend, says he can see no difference at all between these motions. At the moment I heard this remark, I was inclined to believe that it proceeded from that confusion of ideas which sometimes exists in the clearest heads of the country from which he derives his origin, and from which I am myself proud to be descended. What, sir, no difference between refusing to receive a request at all, and actually receiving it and considering it respectfully, and afterwards deciding, without delay, that it is not in your power to grant it! There is no man in the country, acquainted with the meaning of the plainest words in the English language, who will not recognize the distinction in a moment.

If a constituent of that gentleman should present to him a written request, and he should tell him to go about his business, and take his paper with him, that he would not have any thing to do with him or it: this would be to refuse to receive the petition.

On the other hand, if the gentleman should receive this written request of his constituent, read it over carefully and respectfully, and file it away among his papers, but, finding it was of an unreasonable or dangerous character, he should inform him, without taking further time to reflect upon it, that the case was a plain one, and that he could not, consistently with what he believed to be his duty, grant the request: this would be to reject the prayer of the petition.

There is as much difference between the two cases, as there would be between kicking a man down stairs who attempted to enter your house, and receiving him politely, examining his request, and then refusing to comply with it.

It has been suggested that the most proper course would be to refer this petition to a committee. What possible good can result from referring it? Is there a Senator on this floor who has not long since determined whether he will vote to abolish slavery in this District or not? Does any gentleman require the report of a committee, in order to enable him to decide this question? Not one.

329By granting the prayer of this memorial, as I observed on a former occasion, you would establish a magazine of gunpowder here, from which trains might be laid into the surrounding States, which would produce fearful explosions. In the very heart of the slave-holding States themselves you would erect an impregnable citadel from whence the abolitionists might securely spread throughout these States, by circulating their incendiary pamphlets and pictures, the seeds of disunion, insurrection, and servile war. You would thus take advantage of Virginia and Maryland in ceding to you this District, without expressly forbidding Congress to abolish slavery here whilst it exists within their limits. No man can, for one moment, suppose that they would have made this cession upon any other terms, had they imagined that a necessity could ever exist for such a restriction. Whatever may be my opinion of the power of Congress, under the Constitution, to interfere with this question, about which at present I say nothing, I shall as steadily and as sternly oppose its exercise as if I believed no such power to exist.

In making the motion now before the Senate, I intended to adopt as strong a measure as I could, consistently with the right of petition and a proper respect for the petitioners. I am the last man in the world who would, intentionally, treat these respectable constituents of my own with disrespect. I know them well, and prize them highly. On a former occasion I did ample justice to their character. I deny that they are abolitionists. I cannot, however, conceive how any person could have supposed that it was disrespectful to them to refuse to grant their prayer in the first instance, and not disrespectful to refuse to grant it after their memorial had been referred to a committee. In the first case their memorial will be received by the Senate, and will be filed among the records of the country. That it has already been the subject of sufficient deliberation and debate; that it has already occupied a due portion of the time of the Senate, cannot be doubted or denied. Every one acquainted with the proceedings of courts of justice must know that often, very often, when petitions are presented to them, the request is refused without any delay. This is always done in a plain case by a competent judge. And yet who ever heard that this was treating the petitioner with disrespect? In order to be respectful to these memorialists, must we go through the unmeaning form, in this case, of referring the memorial to a committee, and pretending to deliberate when we are now all fully prepared to decide?

I repeat, too, that I intended to make as strong a motion in this case as the circumstances would justify. It is necessary that we should use every constitutional effort to suppress the agitation which now disturbs the land. This is necessary, as much for the happiness and future prospects of the slave as for the security of the master. Before this storm began to rage, the laws in regard to slaves had been greatly ameliorated by the slave-holding States; they enjoyed many privileges which were unknown in former times. In some of the slave States prospective and gradual emancipation was publicly and seriously discussed. But now, thanks to the abolitionists, the slaves have 330been deprived of these privileges, and whilst the integrity of the Union is endangered, their prospect of final emancipation is delayed to an indefinite period. To leave this question where the Constitution has left it, to the slave-holding States themselves, is equally dictated by a humane regard for the slave as well as for their masters.

There are other objections to the reference of this memorial to a committee, which must, I think, be conclusive. I ask the Senate, after witnessing the debate upon the present question, to what conclusion could this committee arrive? If they attempted to assert any principle beyond the naked proposition before us, that the prayer of the memorialists ought not to be granted, we would be cast into a labyrinth of difficulties. It would be confusion worse confounded. If we wish to obtain a strong vote, and thus at the same time tranquilize the South and the North upon this exciting topic, the reference of it to a committee would be the most unfortunate course which we could adopt. Senators are divided into four classes on this question. The first believe that to abolish slavery in this District would be a violation of the Constitution of the United States. Should the committee recommend any proposition of a less decided character, these Senators would feel it to be their duty to attempt to amend it, by asserting this principle; and thus we should excite another dangerous and unprofitable debate. The second class, although they may not believe that the subject is constitutionally beyond the control of Congress, yet they think that the acts of cession from Maryland and Virginia to the United States forbid us to act upon the subject. These gentlemen would insist upon the affirmance of this proposition. The third class would not go as far as either of the former. They do not believe that the subject is placed beyond the power of Congress, either by the Constitution or by the compacts of cession, yet they are as firmly opposed to granting the prayer of the petition, whilst slavery continues to exist in Maryland and Virginia, as if they held both these opinions. They know that these States never would have ceded this territory of ten miles square to the United States upon any other condition, if it had entered into their conception that Congress would make an attempt, sooner or later, to convert it into a free district. Besides, they are convinced that to exercise this power, at an earlier period, would seriously endanger not only the peace and harmony of the Union, but its very existence. This class of Senators, whilst they entertain these opinions, which ought to be entirely satisfactory to the South, could never consent to vote for a resolution declaring that to act upon the subject would be a violation of the Constitution or of the compacts. The fourth class, and probably not the least numerous, are opposed to the agitation of the question, under existing circumstances, and will vote against the abolition of slavery in this District at the present moment, but would be unwilling to give any vote which might pledge them for the future. Here are the elements of discord. Although we can all, or nearly all, agree in the general result, yet we should differ essentially in the means of arriving at it. The politic and the wise course, then, is, to adopt my motion that the prayer 331of the memorialists ought to be rejected. Each gentleman will arrive at this conclusion in his own way. Although we may thus travel different roads, we will all reach the same point. Should the committee go one step further than report this very proposition, we should at once be separated into four divisions; and the result must be that the whole subject would finally be laid upon the table, and thus the abolitionists would obtain a victory over the friends of the Union both to the North and to the South.

Before I made the motion now before the Senate, I deliberately and anxiously considered all these embarrassing difficulties. At the first, I was under the impression that the reference of this subject to a committee would be the wisest course. In view of all the difficulties, however, I changed my opinion: and I am now willing, most cheerfully, to assume all the responsibility which may rest upon me for having made this motion.

I might have moved to lay the memorial upon the table; but I did not believe that this would be doing that justice to the South which she has a right to demand at our hands. She is entitled to the strongest vote, upon the strongest proposition, which gentlemen can give, without violating their principles.

I have but a few more words to say. As events have deprived me of the occupation assigned to me by the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Mangum), I feel myself at liberty to invade the province allotted by the same gentleman to the Senator from New York (Mr. Wright), and to defend a distinguished member of the Albany Regency. In this I am a mere volunteer. I choose thus to act because Governor Marcy has expressed my opinions better than I could do myself.

And here, permit me to say that, in my judgment, Southern gentlemen who are not satisfied with his last message, so far as it relates to the abolitionists, are very unreasonable. With the general tone and spirit of that message no one has found any fault; no one can justly find any fault. In point of fact, it is not even liable to the solitary objection which has been urged against it, that he did not recommend to the legislature the passage of a law for the purpose of punishing those abolitionists who, in that State, should attempt to excite insurrection and sedition in the slaveholding States, by the circulation of inflammatory publications and pictures. It is true that he does not advise the immediate passage of such a law, but this was because he thought public opinion would be sufficient to put them down. He, however, looks to it as eventually proper, in case, contrary to his opinion, such a measure should become necessary to arrest the evil. He expressly asserts, and clearly proves, that the legislature possesses the power to pass such a law. This is the scope and spirit of his message.

Ought he to have recommended the immediate passage of such a law? I think not. The history of mankind, in all ages, demonstrates that the surest mode of giving importance to any sect, whether in politics or religion, is to subject its members to persecution. It has become a proverb, that “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.” By persecution, religious 332sects, maintaining doctrines the most absurd and the most extravagant—doctrines directly at war with the pure faith and principles announced to the world by the Divine Author of our religion, have been magnified into importance. I do not believe there is any State in this Union (unless the information which we have received from the Senators from Vermont might make that State an exception), where penal laws of the character proposed would not advance, instead of destroying the cause of the abolitionists. I feel confident such would be the event in Pennsylvania. Severe legislation, unless there is a manifest necessity for it, is always prejudicial. This question may be safely left to public opinion, which, in our age, and in our country, like a mighty torrent, sweeps away error. The people, although they may sometimes be misled in the beginning, always judge correctly in the end. Let severe penal laws on this subject be enacted in any State—let a few honest but misguided enthusiasts be prosecuted under them—let them be tried and punished in the face of the country, and you will thus excite the sympathies of the people, and create a hundred abolitionists where one only now exists. Southern gentlemen have no right to doubt our sincerity on this subject, and they ought to permit us to judge for ourselves as to the best mode of allaying the excitement which they believe exists among ourselves.

If the spirit of abolition had become so extensive and so formidable as some gentlemen suppose, we might justly be alarmed for the existence of this Union. Comparatively speaking, I believe it to be weak and powerless, though it is noisy. Without excitement got up here or elsewhere, which may continue its existence for some time longer, it will pass away in a short period, like the other excitements which have disturbed the public mind, and are now almost forgotten.

On the 9th of March (1836) the following proceedings took place:

The Senate proceeded to consider the petition of the Society of Friends in Philadelphia, on the subject of the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.

The question being on the motion “that the petition be not received”—Mr. Calhoun addressed the Senate in reply to what had fallen from other Senators on the subject.

Mr. Clay made a few remarks in explanation, called for by some part of the remarks of the Senator from South Carolina.

The question was then taken on the