Слике страница
PDF
ePub

H. OF R.]

Admission of Michigan.

from these halls? Have you the power to exclude those of any other State? Have you the power to refuse to examine the electoral votes? You may do so, but you have not the right. You may exercise the power, but you ride over the constitution of the country, and trample under foot the rights of every man it.

Why, then, should you not now acknowledge and declare the admission of this State into the Union upon an equal footing with others? Are her limits not ultimately and absolutely prescribed? Congress either had or had not the power to prescribe them. If we had the power, we have exercised it, and the thing is done. The act is valid. It cannot be more than valid by any thing we can do, or by any thing others can do; and the condition of assent is little short of nugatory. If we had not the power, if the constitution had not granted us the power, the act is void, and by no indirection can we make it otherwise. And the condition of assent, in that case, is unconstitutional and void. As well might we annex a condition that Michigan should assent for all time to come to receive her Government from the President and Senate. If we have not the power to do it directly, we can. not do it indirectly. Will any member in this House rise up in his place and say that the object was or is to force the people of Michigan to give their assent to an unconstitutional and void act, by a denial of their constitutional rights, until the extorted assent should be given? I think not, sir. The act itself assumes that Congress had the power. That power is exercised in the form of absolute law. The object of the condition of assent was not to create power where it was denied, nor to give validity to that law. It had quite another object; and that was, to prevent dispute, conflict, litigation, agitation, between two sovereign States of this Union; and that in reference to a law which we asserted the power to enact, and did enact.

Why, then, I ask again, shall we not, without further delay, acknowledge and declare the admission of the State of Michigan into the Union upon an equal footing with all other States? She has fixed and unalterable limits given her by Congress, and your power is exhausted. She has a constitution which Congress has approved as republican, and that work is done. She has set up a State Government under it, without your previous assent, and Congress has ratified and confirmed it by its subsequent assent. All this has been done on the part of Congress unconditionally. And the act goes even further. It declares that she is thereby admitted into the Union, upon the express condition that her jurisdiction shall be confined to certain boundaries; and then the very act itself, if not founded in usurpation, effectually executes that condition, by prescribing absolutely those very boundaries. Why, then, I repeat, shall we not acknowledge and declare her admission to be absolute and complete?

Because it is said her admission, by the terms of the act of Congress, is not to be deemed complete, and her representatives are not to be admitted to their seats, until those boundaries have received the assent of a convention of delegates elected by the people of Michigan for the sole purpose of giving that assent; and it is urged that this assent has not been duly given. It is not denied, by any one, that a convention of delegates, claiming to have been elected by the people of Michigan for this sole purpose, have assented in their behalf to this act of Congress. But various objections to that convention have been made. If these can be removed out of the way, the assent will stand, and this condition-even this condition--will be acknowledged on all sides to have been performed.

In the first place, it is said that this convention was not called by the Legislature of Michigan. The constitution of Michigan was valid, or not valid. If not valid, the

[JAN. 24, 1837.

State Government set up under it was in the same predicament, and the Legislature had no authority whatever to call this convention. If valid, the objection is equally overthrown; for the Legislature, under that constitution, had no authority, in any event whatever, to call a convention for the purpose indicated in the act of Congress. It was authorized, in a certain mode, to submit an amendment to the people. It was authorized, also, in a certain mode, to submit to the people the question of a general convention; and, if ordered by the people, to make certain provisions in regard to it. But it was not authorized to call a convention for any purpose, much less for the purpose of giving the assent required by this act of Congress. It had no power over the subject, none whatever. Its sanction, given or withheld, would be of the same importance with that of any other equal number of men, in or out of Michigan, who had no power over the subject; that is, of no importance at all. By what process of reasoning the conclusion is reached, that the legal and constitutional effect of a legislative act, which cannot by possibility have any legal or constitutional effect whatever, should be deemed essential to the validity of this convention, I am utterly unable to discover. The process is quite too subtle for the grasp of ordinary minds.

The act of Congress requires no such thing. It is entirely silent on the subject, nor can it be implied by construction. The law never, by implication, requires a void act; an act which in itself would be unauthorized and void. And will any one say that Congress, with the constitution of Michigan before them, and accepted, ratified, and confirmed, by this very act, intended to exact an impossibility--the exertion of legislative authority which by that constitution had no existence, and which Congress well knew had no existence, and to exclude that State from the Union until that impossibility had been performed.

This disposes, also, of a second objection which has been made, not much insisted on-that the first convention, which refused its assent to this condition, had the sanction of the Legislature of Michigan, which, at the same time, disclaimed any authority over the subject. For it has not been and will not be denied, that if the second convention had the same authority without that sanction, it could reverse the doings of the first; that is, if it had the power of calling a convention of the people of Michigan.

The whole subject lies within a very narrow space. From its very nature, it admits of but two questions: one of fact, the other of power. Was there a convention elected by the people of Michigan? If so, had they the power to give the assent required? Both propositions have been denied; and it is that denial which raises the only two questions deserving of much notice.

I shall not detain the House at this late hour by an elaborate examination and argument of the question of fact. It has already been done in the most conclusive and unanswerable manner by my friends of the committee to which this subject was referred, the member from Maryland, who spoke the other day, [Mr. THOMAS,] and the member from New York, [Mr. VANDERPOEL,] who addressed the House this morning. Those who are not already convinced that this convention was elected by the people of Michigan, received the sanction of the people of Michigan, and spoke the voice of the people of Michigan, will not be convinced. They were required to elect this convention to obtain the benefits of this Union, which they had so much, so long, and so justly desired, and which they thought themselves unjustly deprived of. It was not a trifling occasion. They were appealed to with all the influence and authority of Congress; they were appealed to by their own Executive; they were appealed to by numerous assemblies, in vari

[blocks in formation]

ous parts of the State. The public will had been clearly disclosed in the recent elections, when convention or no convention, assent or dissent, was the test question. A great revolution of the public mind towards peace and harmony, and acquiescence in the doings of Congress, had taken place; so clear and decisive that it was not to be denied. The people were called upon, by irresistible considerations, to act-to express their dissent, if they did not assent. The vote was taken. Nearly three thousand votes were given for assenting to the act of Congress more than were cast on both sides at the previous election; and now, when the doings of the second convention are brought here, to be made the mere basis of our action, and to receive the sanction of this body, and that known to every man in Michigan, the whisper of remonstrance is not heard! It is in vain to my that this convention was not the convention of a large majority of the people of Michigan. It was not and could not have been called in pursuance of any provision in their constitution. It was not and could not have been called by their existing Legislature. It was not and could not have been called by the act of Congress. Aware of all this, it is to be presumed that Congress designedly left it to be the spontaneous act of the people, called by their authority, and clothed with their authority. At all events, Congress, claiming the power to establish the boundary line, without the assent of the people of Michigan, and having exercised that power by the enactment of a law, was content to require it, as a condition to her complete admission into the Union, that the line so established should receive the assent of a convention of delegates, elected by the people of Michigan for the sole purpose of giving that assent. That has been done in the only possible mode; and the condition has been complied with. Compliance is one thing; the ef fect of the act of compliance is another. It is immaterial what may be the effect of that assent. If Congress had imposed the condition that the Legislature of Ohio or Missouri should assent, and that assent had been given, the condition would have been complied with, though both the condition and the compliance might have been of very little importance. I am satisfied that this convention bad the sanction of the people of Michigan; was the act of the majority, not of the minority; and that the assent required by the act of Congress, in its true spirit, to the very letter, has been given, and will be regarded.

But, sir, another objection has been made, which, I think it apparent, from what has already been said, can have but little application to the subject now under consideration; and yet the monstrous doctrine which it involves I cannot pass by without a word of comment. It is said that a majority of the people of a State cannot alter an existing constitution, unless it be in the manner pointed out by that constitution, or in pursuance of some provision of law. Sir, I cannot consent to this proposition. It is at war with the fundamental fact of political science, at least as understood in America-the supreme power of the people, their right to govern themselves.

And

Is there a man in this country who will deny that the people are the source of all political authority? If they are so, then the exercise of it is by their consent, and requires their consent. Consent of whom? Of every man? Of a unanimous people? That were impossible. Of necessity, the majority must give that consent. when given, it continues until withdrawn. Its continuance is the continuance of that authority. Its withdrawal-clear, deliberate, and solemn withdrawal-is the terination of that authority. Otherwise, the supreme power is in the minority; and however small that minority, even if it be a single man, the right is the same. The fundamental principle of a representative republic a abandoned; the sovereignty of the people, the right of

[H. OF R.

self-government, is abandoned; and an oligarchy, or tyrrany in some other form, is established.

By what authority exists every State Government in this Union? The impress is borne upon its face: the consent of the people. "We, the people of the State, do ordain and establish this constitution," It is the consent of the majority of the people; that is, of the people, by the voice of the majority. It is this consent which gives the constitution its authority. It is not a preliminary law. It is not the form of proceeding. It is the fact of this consent. The violation of form, or of previ ous law, does not invalidate it. It is the supreme power, which is superior to previous law or mere form, and by its essential character sweeps both out of the way, and the former constitution along with them. The forms and conditions, and embarrassments and entanglements, as long as they prevent the people from acting, are effectual; but when they break through these, when the people, by a majority, clearly and deliberately, in an authentic form, lay them aside, and declare it to be their will that a change be made, and with that solemn purpose decree that it is made, the supreme power is exerted, and the thing is done.

The supreme power of the people is very familiar in this country. They make constitutions and they unmake them. The same authority which does the one can do the other. They do not part with their sovereignty by setting up a State Government. They exercise it in that mode. It does not pass out of them and into others. There is no grantee, but there are agents-agents in executive, judicial, and legislative departments, who are authorized and restrained by that sovereign will. The constitution, while it continues, expresses that will. The will of the minority does not sustain it; neither can it overthrow it. The will of the majority, clearly and deliberately expressed, and with that purpose, necessarily does both.

It

Put the strongest case that can be supposed. A constitution is declared to be unchangeable and perpetual. Will any man contend the people cannot amend it? I think not. We should see the issue made between the supreme power of a former generation over the present generation, and the supreme power of the present generation over itself. The supreme power, the right of self-government, is at all times in the people. They cannot part with it. It cannot be taken from them. cannot be transferred to a minority any longer than the majority consent; in other words, it cannot be transferred at all. If it could be, the minority would have the supremacy over the sovereign power; a proposition inconsistent upon its face. Disguise it as you will, the question is between the sovereignty of the people and the sovereignty of the minority; the right of self-government and the condition of being governed. The community of any State, not governed by its consent, but against its consent, not governed by its will, but against its will, deliberately expressed for the purpose of throwing off that control, is in bondage.

It

Sir, it is this principle of the supreme power of the people, of the right of the people to govern themselves, which was the chief controlling principle of the American Revolution, which is the foundation of all our institutions, which is the basis of every State Government in the Union, and without which liberty is but a name. is the contest of liberty every where, and at all times, for the power of the people against a smaller numbera few, or one. In whatever place and with whatever fortune the contest may be going on, speed to it. Let not its champions be disheartened. The cause is a good one. It must ultimately prevail-it will finally triumph. It may be obstructed, it may languish, but, in the end, it is sure to triumph.

I will detain the House no longer. I would not have

[blocks in formation]

detained it thus long, had not my sentiments been somewhat different from those expressed by others. The people of Michigan have been unjustly delayed. In this chosen and favored land, where liberty has taken her residence, where the rights of men are best known and most regarded, the whole people of Michigan have been made the victims of injustice. It is time that it should cease. I trust the House will not adjourn this night without giving a pledge to them, by its action upon this bill, that their rights are to be respected, without further embarrassment, vexation, or delay.

Mr. STORER spoke in opposition to the bill.

Mr. A. MANN said that, believing that Michigan was entitled to come into the Union under the conditions contained in the bill of the last session, and believing that, at this advanced stage of the present session, there was no general disposition to protract the debate, he moved the previous question.

Mr. JENIFER moved a call of the House.

Mr. BRIGGS moved that the House adjourn. Mr. B. desired to inquire from the Chair whether, if the motion to adjourn prevailed, the motion of the gentleman from New York would not come up first in order when the bill was again taken up.

The SPEAKER said it would.

[Cries of "question! question!"]

[JAN. 25, 1837.

Mr. U. then made a statement, in reply to some re marks of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. HARDIN] in relation to bis (Mr. U's) mileage; and he then called for the previous question.

But the House refused to second the call: Ayes 38, noes not counted.

Mr. UNDERWOOD said that, as there seemed to be no disposition in the House now to put a stop to further debate on this subject, he was willing to gratify them with making some observations. And he was the more disposed to do this, because he thought that, when the House had heard what he had to say, they would find the necessity of adopting the resolution.

The amendment of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. CLAIBORNE] proposed the appointment of a select committee to inquire what members of the House had been in attendance on the Supreme Court, and (if be (Mr. U.) understood the purport of the resolution) how much money they had made; or, rather, how much mo. ney had been drawn from the public Treasury for time during which they were not in attendance here. He had no objection to the resolution, if the gentleman from Mississippi would offer it as a distinct proposition, so as not to throw obstacles in the way of obtaining the proper

And the question being taken, the motion to adjourn light in relation to the bill which would come up for prevailed: Ayes 83, noes 37.

So the House adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25.

WILLIAM HEROD, elected a member of this House to fill the vacancy occasioned by the lamented death of Mr. KINNARD, appeared, was qualified, and took his seat.

MILEAGE OF MEMBERS.

The unfinished business of the morning bour was the following resolution, heretofore offered by Mr. Under

WOOD:

"Resolved, That the Clerk be directed to lay before this House a statement showing the mileage claimed and the sums paid therefor, to the members of this House and the Delegates from Territories, respectively, during the last and present session of Congress; and that he al so procure and lay before this House a similar statement in regard to the Senators in Congress."

To which Mr. CLAIBORNE, of Mississippi, heretofore offered the following amendment:

"And be it further resolved, That a select committee of five be appointed, with power to send for persons and papers, to inquire into and report to this House what deduction, if any, the members of the House of Representatives have made in their accounts for per diem compensation when absent in attendance upon the Supreme Court of the United States, or on the courts of adjacent States, or on their own private business elsewhere."

To which amendment Mr. YELL heretofore offered the following amendment:

"And that said committee be instructed to inquire into the expediency of providing by law for reducing the compensation allowed to members of Congress to six dollars per diem; and also into the expediency of providing by law for the removal of the seat of Government of the United States to some point on the Ohio or Mississippi river, on or before the 1st day of January, 1840."

The pending question was on the amendment to the amendment.

Mr. UNDERWOOD said if he could perceive that there was any disposition to take the question on his resolution without further debate, he would move the previous question upon it, after he had made a brief statement personally affecting himself.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

consideration. If the gentleman was sincere in his proposition, why not offer the amendment as a resolution, when his State should be called in its order?

There was one aspect, however, in which he (Mr. U.) disapproved of the inquiry, and which he thought the gentleman from Mississippi had overlooked. The amendment seemed to contain an imputation against the practice, on the part of members of Congress, of attending this court. He (Mr. U.) believed that the practice of representing the people of the several States, and the States themselves, before this tribunal, ought to be sanc tioned rather than suppressed. Mr. U. here alluded to the many questions of grave importance, involving the interest of the several States, which were constantly brought before the Supreme Court; and argued that the representatives of the people of those States were much better calculated to manage these questions to advan tage, from their possessing a more perfect knowledge of the local laws and policy of the several States, than resident counsel here could possibly be. The State of Kentucky had not only sanctioned this practice, but had herself retained and paid fees to her members of Congress to attend at this court, and vindicate the claims of her citizens.

As to the amendment of the gentleman from Arkansas, [Mr. YELL,] Mr. U. thought it was liable to the same objection of irrelevancy as the other. He thought, also, that if any practical good was expected to result from this amendment, the gentleman should have extended it to the subject of mileage as well as to the reduction of pay. Mr. U. moved for the yeas and nays on the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. BELL said that he thought, after the experiment of the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. UNDERWOOD,] he (Mr. U.) should be satisfied that the House was not disposed immediately to act upon, or, at least, to adopt this resolution. That this resolution should become the hack subject of the morning hour, was unfortunate bott for the feeling and the character of the House. It was however, taking that direction now. That such a reso lution could pass was an idea which he had not for a mo ment entertained; not from any improper motive on the part of the House, but from feelings which were honor able to it. He did not impugn the motives of the gen tleman from Kentucky. He spoke from the experienc he had of similar questions to those, which had bee heretofore submitted to the House. The object of ths

[blocks in formation]

gentleman was to correct the unequal rate of mileagean object patriotic and proper. He (Mr. B.) would like to see it accomplished, and he trusted that it would ultimately be adopted by the vote of a majority of the House, without casting imputation upon any members who, in the opinion of other members, might have taken an extra mileage. A bill was now upon the table, on its third reading, which, when it came up, could be so modified as to embrace this desirable object-the equalisation of the mileage. That the mileage was at present unequal was a fact acknowledged on every side. What necessity existed, then, for adopting this resolution now? Why should the same subject be brought twice under discussion? Some gentlemen argued that the way to correct the evil would be to publish the statement of the mileage of all members. That was already done at the end of each session; and that object, therefore, was mainly accomplished. He thought the subject had better be discussed when the bill on the table should come up. With this view, he would move to lay the resolution and amendments on the table.

Mr. LANE called for the yeas and nays on that motion; which the House refused to order.

And the question being taken, the resolution and amendments were ordered to lie on the table: Yeas 95, nays not counted.

Resolutions were then called for, commencing where the call was last suspended.

FREEDOM OF ELECTIONS.

Mr. BELL said he rose for the purpose of submitting ■ motion, of which he had given so many notices, for leave to introduce a bill to secure the freedom of elections; but he had himself felt so much of the inconvenience and disadvantage under which gentlemen labored who had held resolutions for some time which they could not have an opportunity to present, that he was disposed now, after having submitted his motion, to move that, under the indulgence of the House, every gentleman who had resolutions to offer should now offer them, provided they would not create debate. If no gentlemen were desirous to present such resolutions, he was ready now to proceed with his observations.

No resolution having been offered,

Mr. VANDERPOEL rose to a point of order. He wished to inquire whether a motion for leave to bring in a bill was debatable.

The CHAIR said he thought it was. The gentleman had a right to state the character of the bill.

Mr. BELL then said that the remarks which he had intended to submit might per Chair, to be read, the bill and preamble which he proposed to read. If the Chair thought the proceeding regular, Mr. B. would be glad that the preamble and bill should be read.

The CHAIR said that the regular way would be to take the sense of the House whether the same should be read for the information of the House.

And the question being taken, the sense of the House was declared in favor of the reading.

The preamble and bill were accordingly read, as follows:

A bill to secure the freedom of elections.

Whereas complaints are made that officers of the United States, or persons holding offices and employments under the authority of the same, other than the heads of the chief executive Departments, or such officers as stand in the relation of constitutional advisers of the President, have been removed from office, or dismissed from their employment, upon political grounds, or for opinion's ake; and whereas such a practice is manifestly a violating of the freedom of elections, an attack upon the puble fiberty, and a high misdemeanor; and

[H. OF R.

Whereas complaints are also made that officers of the United States, or persons holding offices or employments under the authority of the same, are in the habit of intermeddling in elections, both State and Federal, otherwise than by giving their votes; and whereas such a practice is a violation of the freedom of elections, and a gross abuse, which ought to be discountenanced by the appointing power, and prohibited by law; and Whereas complaints are also made that, pending the late election of President and Vice President of the United States, offices and employments were distributed and conferred, in many instances, under circumstances affording a strong presumption of corruption, or that they were conferred as the inducements to, or the reward of, influence employed, or to be employed, in said election; and whereas such a practice, in the administration of the patronage of the Government, will speedily destroy the purity and freedom of the elective franchise, and undermine the free system of government now happily established in these United States: Therefore, to prevent the recurrence of any practices which may give rise to similar complaints in future,

SEC. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep resentatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the fourth day of March, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-seven, no officer, agent, or contractor, or other person, holding any office or employment of trust or profit, under the constitution and laws of the United States, shall, by the contribution of money, or other valuable thing, or by the use of the franking privilege, or the abuse of any other official privilege or function, or by threats and menaces, or in any other manner, intermeddle with the election of any member or members of either House of Congress, or of the President or Vice President of the United States, or of the Governor or other officer of any State, or of any member or members of the Legislature of any State; and every such officer or other person offending therein shall be held to be guilty of a high misdemeanor, and, upon conviction in any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall pay a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars; and any officer other than the President, Vice President, and judges of the courts of the United States, so convicted, shall be thereupon removed from office, and shall be ever after incapable of holding any office or place of trust under the authority of the United States: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to interfere with the right of suffrage, as secured by the constitution: And provided, further, That nothing herein contained shall so operate as to previst ehte by side with the power of appointing inferior officers, from removing from office, at any time, any incumbent whom the President, or the head of a department, as the case may be, shall be satisfied has intermeddled in any election, State or Federal.

President, or head of depart

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That from and after the fourth day of March, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-seven, no officer who, by the constitution and laws of the United States, is authorized to appoint, or nominate and appoint, any officer or agent of the Government, shall, by himself, or by any other person or persons in his behalf, give, or procure to be given, or promise to give or procure to be given, any office, place, or employment, to any person or persons whatsoever, with intent to corrupt or bribe him or them, or upon agreement that such person or persons to whom, or for whose use, or on whose behalf, such gift or promise shall be made, shall exert his or their influence in any election, or by himself or themselves, or by any other person or persons, at his or their solicitations, endeavor to secure the clection of any person or persons to represent any State, or any district in any State, in Congress, or of

[blocks in formation]

any person to be President or Vice President of the United States, or of any person to be Governor or other of ficer of any State, or of any person or persons to be a member or members of the Legislature of any State; and every such officer offending therein shall be held to be guilty of a high misdemeanor, and, upon conviction in any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall pay a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars; and any officer, other than the Presiden', or the judges of any of the courts of the United States, so convicted, shall be thereupon removed from office, and shall be incapable, ever after, of holding any office or place of trust under the authority of the United States; and every person who shall receive or accept, by himself, or by any other person or persons in trust for, or in behalf of, such person, any office, place, or employment, with the intent aforesaid, shall be held to be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction in any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall pay a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, be removed or dismiss. ed from such office, place, or employment, and shall be incapable, ever after, of holding any office or place of trust under the authority of the United States..

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the several fines imposed by this act shall, when collected, be paid into the Treasury, as other moneys belonging to the United

States.

After the reading had been concluded,

Mr. BELL addressed the House as follows:

Mr. Speaker: In moving for leave to introduce the bill that has just been read for the information of the House, I have been actuated by a motive which, I know, will be more acceptable to honorable members than merely to lay the foundation of a speech for ephemeral effect, here or elsewhere. My object is, sincerely, temperately, but earnestly, to call the attention of both sides of this House, and of the country, to the expediency, the eminent expediency, not to say the necessity, of immediate legislation upon the subject which it brings to view.

I admit the obligation of every gentleman upon this floor, who ventures to bring forward charges of a grave nature, and upon which he proposes to call forth the action of the House, to be sure that they are not unfounded in fact, and to take care that he may not be justly charged with an attempt to create unjust and false impressions, for party effect, or merely to gratify some unworthy passion. In this respect, I feel that I stand upon perfectly sure ground. As to the allegations of improper practices and abuses, set forth or implied in the preamble to the bill, I stand prepared to prove them all by such evidence as would be satisfactory to any jury of honest men; and I challenge the opportunity, under the authority and in the name of this House, to do so, to the satisfaction of the whole country. As to some of the abuses assumed to exist in the preamble, I believe I will not be put to the proof. The practice which has obtained to some, I believe I may say to a considerable extent, of removals from office upon political grounds, or for opinion's sake, will not, I imagine, be denied by gentlemen representing the Middle and Northern States. Still, I may revert to this point again, inasmuch as in some sections of the country it has been denied that such a practice has obtained, under this administration, to any extent. I presume, sir, it will scarcely be denied that a large proportion of the officers of the Federal Government, from the President down to the lowest grade of persons employed in its service, have interfered, of late, in all federal elections, directly, openly, and industriously. Then, the only charge implied in the preamble of the bill which may call for explanation, or proof, is, that, in the late election of Presi dent and Vice President, offices and employments have

[JAN. 25, 1837.

been given and distributed as the wages of political profligacy-the rewards of hireling service in the sup port of particular and favorite candidates. I know the extent of the responsibility I assume in making this charge. I know full well the difficulty which always attends an attempt to make proof of any such charge, when there is so much power to influence and intimi date on the one hand, and none, often, even to protect, on the other. I know how often it happens that a whole community are convinced in their own minds, from cir. cumstances known to exist, that crime has been perpetrated, yet the accuser is foiled in making out his charge by clear and positive proof. But, after taking a full view of the responsibility I incur, I here solemnly reaffirm the charge implied in the last clause of the preamble to the bill which I have submitted for the consideration of the House. I beg leave to explain the ground I mean to occupy in making this charge. I am not so illiberal as to infer a corrupt motive in giving or receiving an office, during an exciting election, from the circumstance that the politics of the parties are the same, even when the person receiving the appointment is an active partisan. Officers must be appointed; the ap pointing power must be exercised; and when the persons appointed are honest and capable, I have never complained that they were selected from among political friends. But, sir, when appointments are made from among political opponents, who thereupon suddenly change their politics, and become political adherents, or when the new convert from his late principles receives an office at the hands of his new political associates, I maintain that this is the highest and most conclusive evidence of a corrupt understanding which the nature of such a transaction admits. I have said as much upon this point as I designed on the opening of the subject. I may recur to it again before I sit down.

[Here Mr. BELL was interrupted by a call for the or ders of the day. Next day Mr. B. continued his speech.] I have said enough, I hope, to satisfy the House that I do not intend to raise an idle clamor, based upon vague and unsupported charges or rumors. Supposing them for a moment to be true, is there a man who hears me who does not agree that the subject is of such magnitude, and the evils so alarming, as to demand immediate attention and redress?

But, before I proceed further, I wish to anticipate an objection as to the time at which I have thought proper to bring forward this measure. Many gentlemen, feeling the pressure of the great variety of business demanding the action of the House, and considering the short period within which the session must necessarily terminate, may desire that this subject should be postponed until another Congress. It is my opinion, sir, that there is no time so fit as the present. The new administration is not yet committed, in practice, to the support of the abuses complained of. These charges cannot, therefore, be construed into an attack upon it; and I take this occasion to say that, for one, it is my intention to give to the new administration every support to which the members of it shall entitle themselves by the merit of their measures. I shall endeavor, as far as possible, to forget the very exceptionable circumstances and influences which brought them into power, in order that my judgment may not be improperly biased. I am the more inclined to this course, because, for any thing I now see in the condition of parties, those who are now in power will be likely to govern the country for a long time to come. At all events, the elements of opposition must undergo a considerable modification-there mus be further decompositions, different combinations, new trials of political affinities, and a recasting of parts among the actors in the political drama-before there can be any just ground to hope for success in opposing the ex

« ПретходнаНастави »