Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

issue of the contest. The union of these States cannot be dissolved but by the consent of the people to a change in their Government, in the manner provided by the constitution of the country. States or individuals will never be permitted to do it; for if there exists in the American bosom one principle of patriotism more strong than another, it is that of attachment to the Union. This principle is so deeply seated in the hearts of our countrymen, that it cannot be shaken; and the Union must and will be preserved. All threats of dissolution, as I before said, are vain and illusory; they never can, they never will, be carried into execution.

This question, like most others agitated here, has not been suffered to pass by, without an allusion to party. We have been told that such is the influence of party discipline, that in the very eye of the gentleman rests one who, by raising his finger, could muster the party to a vote. Insinuations of this kind I, for one, cast behind me; the country will judge of their correctness. It is said, however, that the President, in his annual message, recommended a measure of this kind; and it is strange that his party should now falter. I follow party where the constitution and principle lead; and when men attempt to take their place, I halt. I support the administration party, because I am a firm believer in the great principles which govern them; and I endeavor to sustain them in all minor and formal points. For the sake of those principles, I sustain the President to the best of my abilities, because I believe that he has done more for the liberty of his country, and to place his administration upon the basis of the Government and public opinion, than any man living. That he may sometimes err, is human. That his most ardent friends may sometimes think him in error, when, in truth, he is not, is natural to expect. But that this honest difference of opinion should divide them, his opposers need not hope for; that he has recommended that postmasters and officers of this Government should arrest the passage through the mail of publications of any kind, as contemplated in this bill, I do not understand; but he suggests the propriety of passing such a law as would prohibit, under severe penalties, the circulation in the southern States through the mail of incendiary publications intended to instigate the slaves to insurrection-not barely a publication touching the subject of slavery. With great respect to this recommendation, or rather suggestion, I cannot give it my support. To punish injuries done to individuals, belongs exclusively to the States; they have ample security in their own power to punish any person in their jurisdiction who may read or distribute any publication which their laws may prohibit, but they cannot reach the post office or the postmaster for its delivery as directed, because such act is under a paramount authority. I, for one, doubt, strongly doubt, the power of Congress to provide by law for the pun. ishment of any act, as a criminal offence, but those especially enumerated in the constitution; and I can find but few such grants, such as counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, the pun. ishment of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, offences against the law of nations, and treason against the United States. It will readily be perceived that I confine my doubts to punishments to be inflicted in consequence of judgments by the civil tribunals of the country, rendered in courts of justice. Whether, in my course here or elsewhere, on this or any other measure, I have no guide but party, I cannot suffer the Senator from South Carolina to be my sole judge. There is another and higher tribunal before which I must and am willing to answer; and to whose just judgment I will most cheerfully submit for my opposition to this bill. On motion of Mr. PORTER,

The Senate adjourned,

THURSDAY, APRIL 14.

LAND BILL.

[APRIL 14, 1836.

The bill to appropriate, for a limited time, the proceeds of the sales of the public lands among the several States, and for granting lands to certain States, was taken up as the special order.

Mr. BENTON observed that this bill contained the same donation for the State of Missouri as was contained in a bill introduced by himself, and he would barely observe that the Legislature of Missouri had passed resolutions asking for this donation of 50,000 acres, while they remonstrated against the passage of this distribution land bill. The representatives of Missouri, in accordance with the wishes of their Legislature, preferred that this donation should be made in a separate bill; and he therefore moved that it be stricken out from the bill before them. He presumed there could be no objection to this motion on the part of the Senate.

Mr. WALKER said that, as the bill now stood, he should move, as an amendment to the motion of the gentleman from Missouri, to strike out the donation of a like quantity of land to the State of Mississippi. He thought nothing could be more clear than that it was the duty of Congress to put all the new States on an equal footing as to grants of land, and that Mississippi, therefore, ought to have the same quantity given to her that had been given to other new States. It was perfectly certain, also, that if this grant to Mississippi should be retained in the bill, she would get nothing; for even if the bill passed, it was known, from the avowed sentiments of the Executive, that it must receive his veto. As a representative of Mississippi, therefore, he would not perform his duty to his State if he stood by and silently permitted this grant to pass in a bill which never could become a law, and, in consequence of which, Mississippi would receive no grant.

Mr. PORTER took a different view of this matter, in regard to his State, from the Senator from Mississippi, [Mr. WALKER.] He voted for including the State of Louisiana in the bill introduced by that Senator, and he should also vote for this. It was doing an act of justice to Louisiana. He did not feel authorized to modify his views or square his acts to meet the views of the Presi dent. He did not feel authorized to say the President would not take a different view of the measure from what he had taken formerly. He knew he did not change his views very often. But, whatever might be his views, he (Mr. P.) considered it his duty to vote for all grants to Louisiana, let them come in what shape they might, and he was sorry the Senator from Mississippi did not concur with him. But the Senators from Mississippi and Missouri understood the intersts of their States better than he did, and he would vote for their amendments.

Mr. CLAY observed that the provisions in the bill by which grants of lands were made to the new States were made on the principles of equalisation and compromise. In that view the grants were made in Louisiana, Missouri, and all the new States except Ohio, so as to bring their donations up to the quantity that had been received by the last-mentioned State. So far as his vote went, he should vote to expunge from the bill the grant to any new State, whose two Senators concurred in desiring it to be so expunged. He would here observe, that any reference to what the President would do, with regard to a measure pending before the House, was not altogether parliamentary; and if such a reference were made in the English Parliament, as to the opinions of the King, it would be immediately decided to be out of order. And here, too, the same question of order would have been raised if they had not gone further than they ever had in England as to executive responsibility. The

[blocks in formation]

proper rule was, that each department of the Government should perform its duty without considering the opinions or wishes of the other departments.

The Senator from Mississippi, however, had no warrant for his opinions as to what the President would do with regard to this bill, unless he got it from late conversations with him. In the message of 1832, the President laid it down, that Congress had the power over the public lands, as broad as any one had; and in pursuance of what was supposed his recommendations, the bill to distribute the proceeds of the public lands was framed. But things had materially altered since the President's veto. A large portion of the public domain had been sold, and a large surplus had accumulated in the treasury, which it was highly necessary to dispose of. These circumstances would justify the President in going back to his first opinions. The most the Senator from Mississippi could say was, that the President had given two opinions as to the public lands: one in the message of 1832, the other in the veto message; but which of the two, under the present state of things, he will adhere to, he could not know, unless from conversations with him. In the veto message, the President laid it down that they had no right to grant money or lands to the new States, and he referred to the act of cession to show that the public domain must be held for the benefit of the old States as well as the new. This veto message, he would inform the Senator from Mississippi, would meet him at every turn, and would apply with equal force against a donation to a new State in a separate bill, as against the general bill under consideration.

[Here Mr. CLAY quoted at length from the message of the President, giving his reasons for refusing his assent to the land bill.]

The gentleman would here find, Mr. C. said, that the reasoning of the President was against giving lands or money to the new States beyond what was given to the old; and unless the Senator from Mississippi knew from conversations with the President what he would do, they were left, by his public acts, to infer that he would veto one bill as much as the other. The only way for them to act was to legislate according to their own ideas of propriety, without waiting to inquire what the President would do.

Mr. WALKER said it was under a sense of the obligation he owed, as a Senator, to the people of the State he in part represented, that he had offered his amendment. His object was, that the State of Mississippi should be placed on the same footing with other States; and felt anxious that she should receive that justice which was due to her by a bill having that grant, and no other principle, in it. He did not approve of the principle of making grants to some of the new States, and refusing them to others. It was his duty, as a representative, to pursue that course most likely to effect the object of the grant to Mississippi, and he should have been recreant to his duty to have put it in a bill that had received the veto of the President.

In reply to the Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. CLAY,] he believed that Senator referred more frequently to the acts of the President than he had; and not only referred to what he had done, but what he would do, and even to what he had not done. For on that auspicious day when he, Mr. W., took his seat in that body-the birthday of the Father of his Country-he [Mr. C.] had said the President had given an apology to France. If the flag of our country had been stained with that word apology, the youngest republican in it would have scaled the walls of the Capitol, and cut it out. The President had given no apology. The Senator from Kentucky had said that they might infer that the President would not veto his bill again. He, Mr. W., had the most exalted opinion of that venerable man, (the

[SENATE.

President,) notwithstanding the denunciations against him in this hall, which had been converted into a debating club.

The policy of the President, in regard to the public lands, was to reduce the price of them so as to bring them within the reach and the ability of the settlers to buy them. Whereas the policy of his opponents was to increase the price of them; and the Senator from Ohio [Mr. EWING] had said he intended to bring in a bill fixing the price at $30 per acre.

[Mr. EWING explained that the bill he intended to introduce was to prevent frauds by combinations, and to raise the price of that part of the lands which was of the best quality.]

Mr. WALKER proceeded. Then, should he stand by and see a bill of that description pass, and which ought to have its title changed to a bill for keeping up the price of lands instead of the title it bore? He could not tell what might be the effect of the policy of raising the price of the public lands; but, like the tariff act, it would endanger the safety of the Union; it would, in all probability, be met with open violence in some of the new States.

If he (Mr. W.) had fallen into an error in alluding to what the President would do, he had an illustrious example before him. For if it was out of order for him to do so in regard to this bill, it was out of order for the Senator from Kentucky to do so in relation to the other. Mr. W. went into an explanation of some length, to show the justice of the claim of Mississippi and other new States, and wherein the bill he introduced differed in principle from this bill, and that it was not so liable to be vetoed by the President as this, and that he had signed bills making appropriations of land when unconnected with a general bill such as this was.

Mr. BLACK said that he would prefer taking the grant to Mississippi in a distinct bill, though he could not vote against her having the grant in the bill before them. If he concurred with the principles of the veto message, he should not hesitate to join his colleague in voting for his amendment; but, under present circumstances, he must vote for the grant to his State in any bill in which it was made. When this distribution bill was first introduced, he took occasion to express his disapprobation of it. Circumstances, however, were much changed since that time. The public debt was paid off, and there was a large surplus revenue accumulating in the treasury. The President, in his veto message, excepted to that portion of the bill which gave to the new States the twelve per cent. fund and grants of land. Now, with respect to grants of land, Congress had not only the right, but it was their duty, as large landholders in the new States, to assist them in their internal improvements by such grants, because by this means they enhanced the value of the public domain. It was on this principle that five hundred thousand acres had been granted to Ohio for her canal, which greatly increased the amount of the sales of public lands in that State. He could point out in Mississippi improvements, which, if made, would enhance the value of the public lands there as much as had been done in Ohio. He thought the grant of the twelve and a half per cent. fund rested on the same principle.

Mr. B., in conclusion, appealed to all the members of the Senate to first take the question on the grant to Mississippi in the separate bill, as an act of justice to his State, in putting her on an equal footing, as respected grants of lands, with the other new States.

There

Mr. CLAY said, if he understood the Senator from Mississippi last up, [Mr. BLACK,] he would prefer retaining the provision for the benefit of that State. was a division, then, between the Senators from that State, and as he (Mr. C.) should prefer retaining the

[blocks in formation]

provision including that State, he would vote to retain it. The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. WALKER] had said that he (Mr. C.) was equally obnoxious to the charge of referring to the veto of the President. That Senator had first brought the veto into view, and then, because he (Mr. C.) had referred to it, he had read him a lecture. It was well known to every Senator here that he (Mr. C.) had been a very silent member during the session, and as he was an old, experienced, and indeed silent member, he thought the Senator from Mississippi might have spared him the lecture. The Senator from Mississippi, it was true, had taken his seat on a very auspicious day; auspicious by its being the birthday of the man whose like we might never see again. As to whether it was rendered more auspicious by his [Mr. W's] taking his seat on the same day, he (Mr. C.) must be spared the expression of an opinion.

The Senator from Mississippi alluded to an affair which he supposed had long since gone with all the Capulets. The Senator said an apology would have been disgraceful. An apology (said Mr. C.) might or might not be disgraceful, which depended upon the circumstances that induced it. He did say, and he repeated, the letter to the Prince Polignac was a labored letter, and putting it and the letter of the Secretary of State together, they amounted to an apology. Let Senators look at them, and see if they did not amount to an expression of regret amounting to an apology. When the question of these grants came up, he would vote for them as a part of a great compromise. But if they came up separately, he would vote against them, as being without precedent or principle.

He

Mr. WALKER observed that, after what had been heretofore said by the Senator from Kentucky, he had listened to him with some surprise. He certainly entered that body with feelings of high personal respect for that gentleman. What had been that gentleman's course in relation to himself? He thought the gentleman had pursued a course somewhat marked towards him. introduced a bill in conformity with the wishes of six States of the Union, so often expressed to that body; and what was the course of the Senator on that occasion? It was to rise and say, that if it was not an unusual course in that body, he would move for the immediate rejection of the bill; and, further, the gentleman strenuously opposed the sending the bill to a select committee, who would have given it a fair consideration; while he urged the sending it to the Committee on Public Lands, which it was known was hostile to it. What was the gentleman's course on the present occasion? He (Mr. W.) had moved to strike the grant for Mississippi out of the bill; because he knew, as he had explained to the Senate, that if it remained in it, Mississippi would receive no grant at all, as it was known that the President would veto the bill, even if it passed both Houses. And now to refer to the lecturing the Senator spoke of. He read no lecture to the Senator from Kentucky: it was that gentleman who first read a lecture to him. He (Mr. W.) had not made a solitary objection to the gentleman's course on that or any other subject; but the gentleman took occasion to lecture him for looking at the President's opinions, for the purpose of seeing what would be his course on this bill, and saying that he had violated the rules of order when the gentleman commenced the lecture. Consider. ing the gentleman's age and distinguished services, notwithstanding the differences of political opinions between them, there was no gentleman for whom he had entertained a higher respect, or from whom he would receive an admonition with greater pleasure; but the admonition must be given in a spirit of kindness; when it came in a spirit of taunt and reviling, he would use the privilege which God had given to every human being, of resistance to the utmost. And what, said Mr. W., did

[APRIL 14, 1836.

I do? I merely followed his illustrious example. I said that, the first day that I took my seat, I heard him refer to the message of the President, and tell the American people, and the whole world-and I have seen it in print too, in the newspapers of this country, and I suppose it is in those of France-that the Chief Magistrate of my country had disgraced it, by making an apology to France. He would close his remarks by expressing his deep regret that an American Senator had made statements that would carry joy to the bosom of every Frenchman, but would cause a pang of shame and mortification in the heart of every true American. He was compelled to contest the assertion made by the Senator, that the President had made an apology to France, and he would maintain it, by reading an extract from that very message on which the French Government came to the conclusion to pay the money.

[Here Mr. W. read extracts from the message of the President, in which it is stated, in the most emphatic terms, that he never would degrade himself and his country by making an apology.}

It had been said, continued Mr. W., that an explanation was an apology. This he never had heard before; and certainly the explanation made by the President was one of which no American had cause to regret. It was only repeating what he had said from the first, and retracting nothing. The manner in which the President closed the difficulties with France would shed on the close of his administration a blaze of glory as brilliant as that which marked his path at New Orleans; and he believed that, of all the laurels he had gained, those would grow the greenest which sprung from the termination of the controversy with France.

Mr. CLAY had no doubt, as the Senator [Mr. WALKER] said, he took his seat without any personal feeling. He had no unfriendly feelings toward the Senator from Mississippi. When that Senator had more experience, he would find the expression of a difference of opinion was not considered a want of courtesy. He [Mr. W.] had expressed a strong opinion in favor of large appropriations of land to new States, and he (Mr. C.) that it was better to equalise them among all the States. There were three bills making large grants to the new States, and not one acre to the old ones; and was it a want of courtesy that he should propose a reference to a committee, well informed on the subject, to examine it in all its bearings. It would be strange if a difference of opinion should indicate a want of courtesy. After the Senator had been here for a time, he would find it not best to retain these reminiscences. He (Mr. C.) felt it his duty to oppose these partial, one-sided grants, and would still oppose them. It was true, the message of the President, as read by the Senator from Mississippi, stated he would not apologize. But he invited the Senator to look at the letter of the Secretary of State to Count Polignac, and he would find it was an apology. Not, to be sure, a degrading one, as the Senator had referred to, and he did not say whether it was to be construed as being wrong. He thought France had behaved wrong. It would have been more in accordance with her chivalrous character to have first paid the money, and then, if she felt herself wronged, to have taken measures for redress. She had seized upon this matter as a pretext to withhold the money acknowledged to be due to this Government. But while the President was holding out to the country that he would not make an apology, he (Mr. C.) felt himself placed in that unpleasant predicament in which it became necessary for him to point out the inconsistency.

Mr. HUBBARD (in the chair) here stated that the debate was irregular; the amendments of the Senators from Missouri and Mississippi being out of order until the amendments made by the committee were disposed of.

APRIL 15, 1836.]

Territory of Wisconsin-Removal of David Melville.

Several amendments made by the Committee on the Public Lands were then concurred in, some of them occasioning a slight discussion.

After a few remarks from Messrs. EWING and KING of Alabama, the bill was, on Mr. KING's motion, laid on the table, with an understanding that it be taken up to

morrow.

TERRITORY OF WISCONSIN.

A message was received from the House of Representatives, by Mr. FRANKLIN, their Clerk, stating that the House insisted on their amendment to the bill establishing the territorial Government of Wisconsin.

[The amendment reduces the salary of the Governor, as Governor and Superintendent of Indian Affairs.] Mr. BUCHANAN moved that a committee of conference be appointed.

Mr. KNIGHT inquired whether it would not be the proper course to move that the Senate insist on its disagreement and ask a conference.

Mr. BUCHANAN said he preferred the motion as he had made it; and, on taking the question, it was carried by the following vote:

YEAS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Buchanan, Calhoun, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Goldsborough, Grundy, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Linn, Porter, Rives, Robbins, Robinson, Rug gles, Walker, Wall, Webster, Wright-23.

NAYS-Messrs. Clay, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Hendricks, Hill, Kent, Knight, Mangum, Morris, Naudain, Nicholas, Niles, Prentiss, Shepley, Southard, Swift, Tomlinson, White-18.

Mr. PORTER moved that the committee of conference be appointed by the Chair; and the motion having been unanimously adopted, the Chair named Messrs. BUCHANAN, WEBSTER, and SHEPLEY, to compose the committee.

On motion of Mr. KING, of Alabama, the Senate took up the bill granting a pre-emption to Arthur Bronson; and after a debate, in which the bill was supported by Messrs. RUGGLES and PORTER, and opposed by Messrs. KING of Alabama and EWING, the question on ordering it to a third reading was lost: Yeas 9, nays 19. The Senate then adjourned.

FRIDAY, APRIL 15.

[SENATE.

ing its importance. It laid bare the manner in which those who administered this Government abused their trusts. Nothing was too high and nothing was too low for them. It laid bare the manner in which the conditions under which they came into office have been fulfilled. He confessed that sad impressions were made on his mind by the perusal of this petition. He could not but remember the great struggle which brought the President into power. He could not but remember that one of the principal objects they had in view was that the power and patronage of the Government should not be brought to bear on the freedom of elections. He never could forget the scene which took place when the President was inaugurated, and when he declared openly, in the presence of thousands of our citizens assembled on that occasion, the principles on which he would administer the Government. It was a short and noble address, and was received with shouts of approbation by congregated thousands; and particularly that part of the address was applauded, which declared that he would reform those abuses by which the power and patronage of the Government had been brought to bear on the freedom of elections. How that promise had been carried out, let the case of this humble individual answer.

Mr. C. referred to the reasons given for the removal of Mr. Melville, as stated in the petition, and to his correspondence with the Secretary of the Treasury on the subject. On writing to the Secretary, he received an answer, by which he only found out that the collector had exercised the legal authority vested in him. Not satisfied with that, he wrote for a copy of the report of the collector on the subject, and was answered, that the report, being confidential, could not be communicated. Sir, (said Mr. C.,) under what Government could such an act of injustice and oppression be perpetrated? Many of the friends of the administration there would hardly believe it possible such things had occurred. The individual made application to the collector for the reasons of his dismissal, and the collector told him, in a friendly, verbal reply, that no fault had been found with his official conduct, but that his case was one on which he could give no written answer. Mr. C. moved that the petition and papers be referred to the Committee on Commerce. He thought no remedy could be applied; but he wished the committee to take the matter into their consideration. He wished particularly to see the report made by the collector to the Secretary of the Treasury, on the dismissal of Mr. Melville. He had often heard it stated on that floor, that this administration was supported by the votes of freemen; but if the facts stated in this petition be true, it was easily seen how they controlled the fifty or sixty thousand officeholders who supported them.

The petition having been read,

REMOVAL OF DAVID MELVILLE. Mr. CALHOUN said that a petition had been sent to him, with a request that he would present it to the Senate, by a Mr. David Melville, late an officer of the customs at Newport, Rhode Island, complaining of his removal from office. Mr. C. said that he had no acquaintance with this individual, and why he had been selected to present the petition he was at a loss to know. He had therefore inquired into his character, and had understood that he was a highly respectable and worthy man. He had examined his petition, and he must say that Mr. Melville had made out a very strong case. He was weigher and gauger, and had been uniform and consistent in his politics as a Jeffersonian democrat. He had taken a decided part in the late war, having been principally instrumental in raising a volunteer corps which had been highly serviceable. Yet, notwithstanding all this, the purity of his character, the correctness of his deportment in his official duties, and non-interference with elections, he had been dismissed from office and on what grounds? Because he would take Mr. KING, of Alabama, said he knew nothing of the no part in elections, and having a small freehold, he had particulars set forth in the petition of this individual; disposed of it, and could no longer vote. These facts they might be correct, or not. With that he had but were all stated in plain and perspicuous language. Mr. little to do. In no case would he lend his sanction to C. said he knew that this might be considered a small oppression of any kind, or be willing to screen the opaffair; but this, he thought, was very far from diminish-pressor, let him hold office high or low. He should like

Mr. CLAY said, if the facts stated in the memorial were true, they disclosed an instance of flagrant injustice and abuse of power; but, however flagrant it might be, he knew of no remedy. He had risen to inquire whether the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Presi dent, who absolved all responsibility in cases of removal from office, had authorized this removal. As the memorial contained some charges against those high functionaries, he would suggest to those Senators who adopted the expunging principle, whether they should receive this petition. As he did not hold to that doctrine himself, it would not be proper for him to do so; but some of them might make a question of its reception.

SENATE.]

Removal of David Melville.

[APRIL 15, 1836.

to know who was the Secretary of the Treasury under | important public officers, acting under their official rewhom this removal took place. Would the Secretary turn to the papers, and tell him who the Secretary was, and the date of the letters?

[The SECRETARY replied, that one of the letters was signed by Mr. Woodbury, and dated March, 1835.]

sponsibilities, must, he supposed, be legal and just until it is clearly shown to be otherwise.

But the petitioner says he was removed without cause, and on account of his political opinions. This statement comes from the party himself, and is the same complaint that is always heard in all similar cases, indeed in all cases of removal from office. Did you ever hear of a public officer who was removed, who did not tell the same story? who did not declare that it was without cause, and an act of high-handed persecution and oppression? He had no knowledge of this case; he judged of it only from what appeared on the face of the memorial; that was sufficient to satisfy him as to its true character. It was evidently a political concern, and intended for political purposes. It appeared to him that the bare reading of this petition must produce this conviction on every impartial mind. The petitioner does not come here like an injured man, whose only object is to seek redress for his own wrongs. If such had been the case, he would have told a plain and simple story, a mere narration of the facts, unaccompanied by such additions and embellishments as this petition contains about terrible proscriptions, a frightful system of des

Mr. KING was under the impression that this case originated some three years past. The petition was dated in 1835, but he thought the removal was made at an earlier period, and on investigation it would be found to have taken place under Mr. Secretary Ingham, who was certainly not one of the most thoroughgoing of the supporters of the administration. Be that as it might, he was under the impression that they acted in discharge of their duty by receiving memorials complaining of oppression, no matter from whom they came. He was not operated on by any thing said by the Senator from Kentucky. He thought no good could come of the reference of the petition, unless it was to investigate the conduct of the collector. The subordinate officers of the customs, the Senate was well aware, were under the control of the collectors, and must necessarily be so. The Secretary acted with respect to them solely from information received from the collector; and whether this removal was made under the present or the former Sec-potism, party machinery, and party dictation. No man, retary, it would be found, he was confident in saying, that it was on the representation of the collector, either that the services of Mr. Melville were not wanted, or that he was removed on some other than political grounds.

Mr. GRUNDY, after some remarks in favor of the right of petition, said he had known Mr. Littlefield, the collector named in the memorial, ever since he was a mere youth, and until he knew more about this memorial than mere assertion, he would hold the opinion he had always held, that he was incapable of doing an act of injustice. He was inclined to believe it would turn out that these statements were unfounded.

Mr. NILES said that this was a wonderful case of oppression, according to the petitioner's own statement; and, from the remarks of the Senators from South Carolina and Kentucky, [Mr. CALHOUN and Mr. CLAY,] it must be regarded as an outrage of the most alarming kind, from the lawless exercise of power, by a public officer, scarcely less than the acts of rapacity and violence of the pro-consuls of Rome in the provinces of that republic.

he thought, could mistake the true character of this memorial, and the object for which it was sent here.

But, supposing this man had been removed from a subordinate ministerial office, after holding it ten years, without cause, so far as respects any default or misconduct on his part, are we to be told that this is an act of oppression, a flagrant outrage? Was there any violation of law in this act; any invasion of the personal liberty or rights of this man? If not, where was the injustice, where the outrage, which the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CLAY] represents as so palpable, that the President, Secretary, or officer, whoever he may be, who has been guilty of such abuse of official trust, ought to be impeached? Sir, (said Mr. N.,) there would doubtless be as strong grounds for impeaching the President as those for which he was impeached two years ago. The removal of this petitioner was a lawful act, and so was that of the removal of one Secretary and the appointment of another. The only question there could be, in either case, was as to the propriety and expediency of the act, and of this the officer possessing the power of removal and appointment was the rightful and proper judge.

Had this man a private interest in this office, a vested right, of which he could not be dispossessed without injustice and oppression? This seems to be the doctrine for which the Senators contend. Sir, (said Mr. N.,) I deny this doctrine, as unsound in principle and dangerous in practice; I protest against it as anti-republican, and even monarchical; it does not belong to our system; it is not consistent with the genius of our institutions.

But what is this case, which is introduced before the American Senate, under such imposing circumstances, and backed by speeches from two of the most distinguished Senators of the body? Stripped of its coloring and embellishments, of the long homily about proscription, party machinery, a system of despotism, and the like, it is nothing more than this: the petitioner was a subordinate officer of the customs, and had held his office ten years, when, a new collector having been appointed, he deemed it expedient to make some new arrangeThe Senator from South Carolina says he does not ments, and removed the petitioner and appointed an- know this petitioner, and is at a loss why he should other person. The presumption clearly is, that this have selected him as the organ of presenting his petition change of one officer for another was not only legal, to the Senate. He (Mr. N.) thought he could relieve but perfectly fair and reasonable; this change could only the gentleman from his doubt on this point; he knew of have been made by the concurring action of two public two reasons, and very strong ones, why the Senator officers; the collector made the removal, and the new may have been selected to present this petition. In an appointment, which had to be submitted, with his rea- elaborate report on executive patronage, that gentleman sons therefor, to the Secretary, and were approved by denied to the President the constitutional power of rehim. The office of collector is an important one, and moval from office, and, by the same reasoning, I conis generally filled by men of high character and intelli- clude the principle should be followed out and applied gence, which affords some guarantee for the correct- to subordinate executive officers possessing a portion of ness of his conduct; he is responsible to the laws and to the appointing power. The Senator has also maintainpublic opinion. But the decision of this officer is re-ed, I believe, in the same report, the principle that of viewed and approved by the Secretary of the Treasury, one of the highest public functionaries of the GovernAn act, which has received the sanction of two

ment.

fices ought to be as stable and permanent as a freehold. These principles establish the perpetuity of office as a vested right in the incumbent, and doubtless induced the

« AnteriorContinuar »