SENATE.] Mr. Foot's Resolution. [MAY 20, 1830. tion, frauds, and oppression, imperiously demand the for six months. It is admitted that the constitution does inquiry, whether the land system cannot be saved from to- not authorize the President to remove from any civil office. tal destruction. Whether some plan cannot be devised, But, it is contended that, by virtue of his executive powers, which shall promote the interest of the United States; the and to enable him to comply with his oath, "to see that States in which the public lands lie--and the actual set- the laws are faithfully executed," he must of necessity tler, the emigrant from the old States-and this is the ob- possess the power of making removals, and that this ject of the resolution. If the inquiry proposed is too power has been exercised by every President. In my limited, let it be extended to embrace the whole subject; opinion, the necessity does not exist; for certainly the it will have my full acquiescence: and I assure the Sena- exercise of a greater power cannot be necessary, when tors who so suddenly took the alarm, when the resolu- a less power is sufficient to meet the exigency of the case. tion was offered, that they much mistake my views and feel- Nor do I admit that, in making removals by former Presiings, if they believe me unfriendly to their interests; but dents, any such power has been claimed, as has been adthey must not claim the lands as their own. They shall vocated on this floor-the power of making removals "at have my hearty co-operation in any plan for encouraging his pleasure." Certainly no necessity exists for removing emigration to their States, which shall secure the cmi-a faithful officer; his oath, to see that the laws are faithgrant a solid good, and not hold out delusive prospects fully executed, cannot require it. In addition to this, if which can never be realized--a plan which shall promote it becomes necessary to suspend the functions of an ofthe best interests of the United States, and, at the same ficer, for malfeasance, as the laws have made provision time, the best interests of the new States--by securing to for assigning another to perform temporarily the duties of them a sound and healthful population, which shall make an incompetent officer, it would seem that suspension the "wilderness to bud and blossom as the rose, and the would be sufficient, and was contemplated by the act of solitary places become vocal with the high praises of our Congress making such provision. God." The act of July 27th, 1789, has been relied on as givHere I leave the subject involved in the resolution; but ing the power of removal to the President in all cases: some other subjects which have been introduced on this my inference from this act is entirely different. If the occasion demand at least an expression of opinion on my President possessed the power by virtue of his office, part, since they have (in sailor language) been "spli- surely it was not necessary to insert this provision in the ced" upon this resolution; and the first is the power of act; and, as it is not provided for in any other act of Conthe Federal Judiciary. Although, I have uniformly been gress, the fair inference is, that the intention of Congress the advocate of State rights, I never have, and never shall, was to vest in the President the power of removing this claim for them those rights which have been vested by officer for special reasons, which do not apply to any other the constitution in the courts of the United States; and, case. This officer, the Secretary of State, was, in fact, in my opinion, no danger is to be apprehended, as long as the Private Secretary of the President. The law specified we give to the constitution a fair construction. The ju- his duties, and to be performed in such manner as the Predicial power is clearly defined in the second section of the sident should direct; and it was considered reasonable to third article, and extends to all cases arising under the con- give the President the power of removing him; but no stitution and the laws of the United States, &c.-to con- such reasons exist in other cases. This case, unsupported troversies in which the United States is a party, to contro- by any other, is therefore to be considered as a special versies between States, between a State and citizens of exception to a general rule, and more fully establishes another State, &c. It would seem as if no question could the general principles; for, surely, no exception could be arise in relation to a power so clearly defined. I find no necessary, if there was no established rule; and when power given or reserved to a State to put its veto upon an express exception is made, so far from impairing the any decision of this court; and I am for strict construction; general principle, it greatly strengthens it. It is to be conbut, as this subject was introduced by the Chairman of strued literally, and the language is clearly this; this shall the Judiciary Committee, and the members of that com- shall be the only exception. mittee and others are more competent to discuss and de- In my opinion the President has not the power of remocide that question than those who are not professional val from office, because he has not the power to appoint, men, I leave this branch of the subject in the proper hands. and a lesser power cannot remove an officer appointed by a greater power, without that power is specially granted Another, and highly important question, and one in by a power equal to the appointing power. I admit that which the purity if not the very foundation of our Go- the President, during the recess of the Senate, by virtue vernment rests, has been introduced by the Senator from of his general executive power, and his obligation to see Tennessee, [Mr. GRUNDY] viz. the power of the Presi- the laws faithfully exccuted, may suspend an officer in dent on the subject of appointments to office. I use this cases of extreme necessity, until the Senate are convened; language in preference to the language of the mover, but this is a mere suspension-no vacancy happens," "the power of removal," because it embraces (in my within the meaning of the constitution, by such suspenview) the whole case, and does not restrict me to a pro- sion, and it is not in the power of the President to fill such position which, in my judgment, begs at least half the vacancy under the constitution; it becomes his duty to question. The constitution declares, the President shall inform the Senate of the misconduct of such officer, and, nominate, and, "by and with the advice and consent of" by and with their advice and consent," to make the rethe Senate, shall appoint, &c. But Congress may, by law,moval and fill the vacancy; and no othcer is removed from vest the appointment of certain officers in the President office, and no vacancy exists, until the Senate, by their alone, &c. He shall have power to fill up all vacancies vote, "advise and consent to the appointment of a sucthat may happen during the recess, by granting commis-cessor, agreeably to the nomination;" by which act, they sions, which shall expire at the end of the next session; approve of, and make the removal and create the vacancy, officers may be removed by impeachment." This quo- by the joint act of the President and Senate, which is tation embraces every provision of the constitution on the made the appointing power by the constitution. Will it subject of appointments and removals. It never has be claimed that the Senate alone can remove from office, been contended that the President has the sole power of except by impeachment? And if one branch of the power appointment, unless authorized by special law. Con- cannot do it, is it in the power of the other branch to do gress has authorized the President in certain cases of tem-it, except by a special grant of that power by Congress? porary inability, by vacancies in certain offices in the de- With respect to vacancies in the recess of the Senate, partments, to assign some person to discharge the duties the sole power of the President "to fill such vacancies, MAY 20, 1830.] to the end of the next session," depends upon the con- shows the mode of nomination, as well as the manner in struction of the word "happen." What is its meaning' which the Senate advise and consent to nominations. To "To come by chance or accident." Does a forcible re-illustrate my position, the President sends a nomination to moval by the President come within this definition? It the Senate in these words: "I nominate A to be Collector will not, and cannot be claimed. It is not a vacancy which of the Port of, in place of B, removed." The ques"happens" within the meaning or the letter of the con- tion is, will the Senate advise and consent to the appointstitution. This point has been settled by the Senate in ment of A, "agreeably to the nomination?" "If the the case of Mr. Lanman, a Senator from Connecticut, Senate advise and consent to the nomination, in these terms, whose term expired on the 3d March, 1825. The Senate do they not advise and consent to the removal of B, as was convened, by special call of the President, on the 4th well as confirm the nomination of A? And can we do this March. The Legislature of Connecticut, not being in with any propriety, or consistently with a due regard to session, the Governor of Connecticut made a temporary the rights of B, without knowing the reasons why Bought appointment, and forwarded a commission, under this to be removed? For one, I answer in the negative. I canprovision of the constitution--"If vacancies happen by not (with some Senators) “presume that the President had resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the Legis- good reasons," and vote in the dark. It is wholly inconlature of any State, the Executive thereof may make tem-sistent with my sense of duty. I am not willing to assume porary appointments, until the next meeting of the Legis- the responsibility of removing an officer, upon the prelature, which shall then fill such vacancies." After full sumption that the President has good reasons for the remo. debate, the Senate decided, by a large vote, that Mr. val. If the reasons are good, what objection can he have to Lanman was not entitled to a seat, upon the ground that, communicate them to the Senate? If no reasons are asalthough there was a vacancy, the vacancy had not "hap-signed for the removal, my inference would be entirely pened" within the meaning of the constitution. This different from that of the Senator from Tennessee, [Mr. appears to me to be a much stronger case than the one GRUNDY.] I shall presume there is no good reason for under consideration. In the case of Mr. Lanman, the va- the removal; and shall vote against the removal and the cancy occurred by the expiration of the term of his office. nomination, until information is obtained on which reliance A vacancy actually existed, and the only question was, can justly be placed; and, in my opinion, self-respect and how this vacancy had occurred; and, although there was the rights as well as the duty of the Senate demand it. a vacancy, the Senate would not permit the vacancy to be The constitution has not made the Senate the mere refilled by the Executive, on the ground that the vacancy corder of the Executive will, but a part of the appointing did not happen." What is the present case? Had power, and responsible for the faithful discharge of this these vacancies “happened” by casualty or accident? No. high trust. There was no vacancy; but the President endeavors--yes, I am aware of the decision, in 1789, in relation to the he attempts to make a "vacancy happen," by a forcible power of the President to make a removal; but, under the removal of the officer!!! Comment cannot be necessary; peculiar circumstances of that case, it certainly ought not the bare statement is sufficient to satisfy every unpre-to have any force as a precedent. The utmost confidence judiced mind that such vacancy does not happen;" and, was reposed in General Washington. No suspicion or of course, by the decision of the Senate in the other case, jealousy existed, that he could abuse the power thus it is not in the power of the President to fill such vacancy, granted. The question was decided by the casting vote under the provision of the constitution, viz. "The Presi- of Mr. Adams, the Senate being equally divided; and most dent shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may of the framers of the constitution voted against it. And happen during the recess of the Senate, &c;" being pre-were they not qualified to expound the constitution which cisely the same language as in the case of Mr. Lanman; themselves had made? And Mr. Madison, in debate, deand, sir, among those who voted in the negative, on the clares, if any President shall presume to remove, withresolution to permit Mr. Lanman to take his seat, there out cause, or to reward his favorites, he would be liable appears the name of General Jackson, the present Presi-to impeachment; but he cannot conceive how any Predent of the United States!! The doctrine contended for sident could be guilty of such a gross violation of duty." by the Senator from Louisiana, [Mr. LIVINGSTON] has, I But has he not lived to see it? believe, met with few supporters. There are but few But, suppose it be decided that the President has this even of his own political friends, I trust, who are willing, power, no doubt exists but that he is responsible for the by such concessions to the Executive as he has made, to abuse of it. It is certainly a most responsible and delicate surrender at once all the rights of the Senate. He con trust, and never to be exercised except in extreme cases, tended that the President has the "perpetual power of where the public interests imperiously demand it. And appointment"-that when the Senate has rejected his no-is it not the duty of the Senate, if possible, to check every minations, he can fill the vacancies existing after the expira- abuse of this power? tion of the session of the Senate. Such a doctrine leads at There is not a Senator on this floor, nor an individual once to absolute and despotic power in the President, and in this nation of any respectability of character, and a can never be tolerated by a republican people. With my friend to the country, who will say that the President has impressions, it certainly cannot be expected that I should the right to use this power to gratify his malice or caprice, vote for the confirmation of any nomination, made in place or to purchase "golden opinions." But there are some, of any one who is declared by the President to have been and I regret to see it, who have advanced sentiments on removed, unless information is given of the causes for this subject which are well calculated to encourage the which, in the opinion of the President, a removal has be- most monstrous abuse of this power. The Senator from come necessary; as I hold it to be the duty of the Senate New Hampshire [Mr. WooDBURY] was understood to say to inquire into those causes, to enable it to decide cor- "that every officer who differed in political sentiment, or rectly whether the public interest requires a removal. opposed the election of a Chief Magistrate, from a sense And, further, that the President cannot create, or cause of decency, ought to retire; and if he did not, he had no a vacancy to "happen," by removing an officer appoint-reason to complain if he was turned out of office." This, ed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; and, I believe, was at one period the New York doctrine, but more especially, immediately after the adjournment of the certainly a doctrine inconsistent with the rights of private Senate; or, under any circumstances, without the advice opinion, hostile to the best interests of the country, and and consent of the Senate for the removal; since the same dangerous, if not wholly destructive of civil liberty. I power is necessary to remove as to appoint. pronounce, without hesitation, that any citizen who dares The Executive Journal, which has been published, not exercise his elective franchise, independently, is a 66 SENATE.] Mr. Foot's Resolution. [MAY 20, 1830. slave! and any one who would punish a man for the free And, although much individual distress has been produced exercise of this right, is a tyrant! It matters not by what by other removals-widows and orphans left destitute and name he is called. If this is republican doctrine, I have without bread, yet such cases of distress are light comnot yet learned it in more than thirty years' experience. pared with some of these--but an appeal to sympathy is Let us examine this doctrine fairly and candidly, and see useless. its results. The picture is before us. Look at the hordes Although great confusion has been produced by the of hungry office-hunters, surrounding the quarters of Gene-removal of postmasters, and the public interest may be ral Jackson on his arrival in this city, previous to his not a little jeopardized by the changes in the collectors entering on the duties of his office. In the front rank, and other receivers of public moneys, the most palpable marshalled, the hireling editors of newspapers! retailers loss to the public has accrued from the removals in the of slander! pressing on with their bills, and demanding public offices. The Retrenchment Committee verily bepayment; and threatening to turn their tremendous engines lieved some of these departments might be reduced! against the successful candidate, if their bills are protested, What answer do you receive from the Reformers? Oh, or are not promptly paid! About fifty of this class have no! We want more clerks! We cannot keep our accounts received their reward!! In the dark ages, the purse and without "the aid of Congress." No talents or skill can the sword were considered amply sufficient to secure the adjust them "without the interposition of Congress," says "sceptre.". In modern times, the press must be subsi-your Fourth Auditor. And, further, this same auditor, lately dized! Why this tremendous rush of hungry leeches, editor or printer of a newspaper, in speaking of one of his and desperate fortune-hunters, to the city of Washington, brother editors, says, "it is just to the present Comptrol during the last winter? Nothing of this kind was ever ler to state, that he is devising means to change the mode witnessed on any former occasion! Could these creatures of keeping his books, to make them present the truth.” produce the bond? Did they labor for hire? Were they promised their reward? The laborers on a canal were never more punctual in their attendance on Saturday evening, to receive their wages for their week's labor. Such a system of rewards and punishments is calculated to debase the moral sense of the community! It is a regular system of bribery and corruption! If proscription for the free exercise of the elective franchise, and the distribution of the offices as rewards, is to be the order of the But the evil resulting from the removal of experienced day-farewell Liberty--she soon takes her flight from the accountants in their offices, to give place to favorites, is abodes of men. manifesting itself in the loud and incessant complaints of Some removals made by Mr. Jefferson have been quot-those who come to settle their accounts at these departed, to justify the system of proscription for difference of ments. Confusion and loss of papers and vouchers, long opinion. Mr. J. disclaimed the principle: he expressly and tedious detentions, have disappointed many, who have declared, "the right of private opinion shall never be in-settled their accounts before without embarrassment of vaded by me"--and when several attempts were made, in delay. And there is good ground to fear that this proConnecticut and in Delaware, to procure the removal of phecy of the Fourth Auditor will soon become matter of his political opponents, he declined: the reasons for re-history, and such confusion ensue in these offices, as to moval were expressly assigned by him. Let the parallel require the aid of Congress, if not the "sponge," to be drawn between the administration of Mr. Jefferson and restore order. Here we have, in a document accompanying the Presi dent's message, the important and interesting fact, that a new officer, late editor, is very gravely and seriously puzzling his wits to make his books "present the truth." "No talents or skill (of editors probably, as he speaks of his own knowledge) can adjust their accounts without the aid of Congress." Do they calculate that Congress has the power to make an editor a good accountant? the present administration-between the present and all One word, on the right of removing faithful officers. preceding adininistrations-and view the contrast! In one Has not the officer in your department a right to presume, year, more removals have been made than within the fifty when he receives an appointment to an office, not limited preceding! And the worst and most dangerous feature in by any law, that he shall be continued during good bethis case is, that they have been without any cause assign-havior, when no removals have ever been made except for ed; and when the causes have been sought, none have cause? And is it not a violation of good faith to remove a been found--they have been refused, except in one or faithful and competent officer without cause? two cases. Where a cause has been assigned, (in one By the act limiting the term of office to four years, a instance,) it has been of a character, which, in my judg-provision is indeed made, "removable at pleasure;" bat ment, might have been refused with much more credit to can it be claimed that this power is vested in the Presi the person making the removal, viz. "that the head of a dent alone? Why was not the power given in express department, and one in which large sums of money are terms? It can only be construed, at the pleasure of the disbursed, should have those about him in whom he could appointing power. The principal object of that law was place perfect confidence," that they would not keep a to secure a faithful accountability in the officers, as is vigilant watch over his official conduct--and is it come to evident from its embracing those officers only to whom this? Where are your guards about the public treasury? the public moneys were entrusted. The effect, however, Must every clerk in the offices be your political and per- is to limit the term of office--to leave a vacancy in every sonal friend-your menial servant, who breathes by your office during each Presidential term, and certainly superpermission? Sir, this is a very dangerous doctrine! It is sedes any necessity of removals, for the purpose of filling the doctrine of the midnight assassin--the highway rob- such vacancies with the political friends of the President, ber! He selects his friends in whom he can place confi- if such be his object. And, under this act, the term of the dence, that he shall not be betrayed! And must the same office being fixed, the incumbent can have no claim to reselection be made in your departments? Under such a appointment, over any of his fellow-citizens, except from system, how long can public confidence be retained? If his faithful discharge of duty. But, sir, a removal (except the sword is suspended by a thread over the subaltern for misconduct) cannot but be viewed as a breach of good officer, who dares expose malfeasance in the head? Where faith on the part of the Government; it is in the nature of is the difference between such a system, and the Lettres a contract for four years' service; and, on the faithful perde Cachet, or the Inquisition? Your liberties are gone formance by the officer, the Government is bound in good faith to fulfil on its part. for ever! But removals of clerks in the departments are without precedent in this or any other country. In the highest party times, no such removals have heretofore been made! But there is one view of this case which is of serious import, as involving the power, the right, and duty of the Senate. Take, for example, the cases of the Treasurer MAY 21, 1830. Mr. Foot's Resolution. [SENATE. of the United States, the District Attorney in Connecticut, bate had shown him that the original error, after full deand the Collector of the port of New Orleans. These tection and clear exposure, was still adhered to; and its officers were nominated to the Senate, and confirmed dissemination zealously promoted by new and profuse ediduring the last session of Congress. Two of these officers tions of the speech which contained it. Seeing all this, were appointed for four years. An attempt was made to and knowing it to be the obvious effect of this error to postpone the nominations until the fourth of March, which create unfounded prejudices in the West, and thereby to failed; and the nominations were confirmed by a full, if aid in bringing about a state of things to enable one-half not unanimous vote. The Senate continued in session of the Union to govern and oppress the other, he felt it until informed by the President he had no further com- to be his duty to come forward again in defence of the munication to make; and, almost immediately after the South, and to do his work, on this occasion, in a way to adjournment, these officers are removed. I leave this sub- save future trouble to himself, and to prevent a great ject, by proposing the following questions, which I shall mischief to the Union. For this purpose, he would leave for the Senate and for the public to decide. Was it have recourse to plain language and strong facts; to competent for the President to make these removals with- proofs which could not be denied, and authorities which out cause? Was it respectful to the Senate? What check could not be questioned; and would begin by reading has the Senate over appointments, if the President can the erroneous passage, and end by proving it to be erremove all the officers appointed under the constitution roneous. immediately after adjournment? Let these questions be duly considered by the Senate. Has the honest and faith THE PASSAGE. ful discharge of duty no claim on public confidence? Are Extract from Mr. Webster's Speech in reply to Mr. Hayne. twelve thousand offices, in the gift of the President, to be "An attempt has been made to transfer from the North used as bribes, or rewards for political panders? Are the to the South the honor of this exclusion of slavery from little knots of self-created committees to single out the the Northwestern Territory. The Journal, without argu objects of Executive proscription and vengeance, and di-ment or comment, refutes such attempt. The cession by vide the spoils among themselves and their associates? Is it Virginia was made, March, 1784. On the 19th April folmatter of surprise that so many appointments should be lowing, a committee, consisting of Messrs. Jefferson, made of those who are bankrupt in fortune and in charac-Chase, and Howell, reported a plan for a temporary goter? How long can you expect men of integrity and vernment of the Territory, in which was this article: moral worth to fill responsible stations? Have such beenThat, after the year 1800, there shall be neither slavery selected for office? Has the question been, "Is he honor involuntary servitude in any of the said States, othernest? Is he capable? Is he faithful to the constitution?" wise than in punishment of crimes whereof the party shall Or is the question, what service has he rendered, or can have been convicted.' Mr. SPEIGHT, of North Carolina, he render, to the dominant party? And, what compensa- moved to strike out this paragraph. The question was tion does he deserve in payment for the past, or to ensure put, according to the form then practised: Shall these his aid in future? words stand as part of the plan, &c.' New Hampshire, Are these the principles upon which the American Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Government is to be administered? Are the rights and New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, seven States, voted in the liberties of twelve millions of people in no danger? Is affirmative. Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina, in there not a redeeming spirit in the people? Must the the negative. North Carolina was divided. As the contree of liberty, planted by our fathers, and watered and nourished with their tears and their blood, which has so long flourished, and overshadowed this happy country, wither and die in our hands, without one effort for its protection? [Here the debate closed for this day.] FRIDAY, MAY 21, 1830. The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution heretofore submitted by Mr. FOOT, as modified by him on the 20th January, in relation to future sales of public lands, with the motion to postpone it indefinitely. sent of nine States was necessary, the words could not stand, and were struck out accordingly. Mr. Jefferson voted for the clause, but was overruled by his colleagues. "In March of the next year, [1785] Mr. King, of Massachusetts, seconded by Mr. Ellery, of Rhode Island, proposed the formerly rejected article, with this addition: And that this regulation shall be an article of compact, and remain a fundamental principle of the constitutions between the thirteen original States and each of the States described in the resolve,' &c. On this clause, which provided the adequate and thorough security, the eight Northern States at that time voted affirmatively, and the four Southern States negatively. The votes of nine Mr. BENTON threw himself upon the indulgence of States were not yet obtained; and thus the provision was the Senate for a few minutes, [he said] while he endeavor-again rejected by the Southern States. The perseverance ed, with proof in hand, to vindicate the truth of history, of the North held out, and two years afterwards the object and to check the progress of a great and mischievous er- was attained." ror, which had engrafted itself on the preceding part of Mr. B. said, this passage contained a set of small errors, the debate, and obtained a wide circulation through mul- which appeared to be subordinate and subsidiary to the tiplied editions of a printed speech. This error, or rather main one. These he would specify, without taking the this set of errors, for there was a system of them, related to trouble to disprove, knowing that they would fail of themthe question of relative merit between the two great sections selves when the superior planet, of which they were saof the Union, the North and the South, in reference to the tellites, was expunged from the system. The first of passing of the famous ordinance of 1787, for the exclusion of these subaltern mistakes was the statement that New Jerslavery, and general good government of the Northwestern sey voted for retaining the non-slavery clause, reported Territory. He [Mr. B.] had flattered himself, at the time by Mr. Jefferson, in April, 1784. It was not so. of the spoken debate, that the problem of this disputed Jersey did not vote upon that occasion. She was not premerit had been solved by the reading of some passages sent as a State, having but one member in the hall, [Mr. from the Journals of the old Congress; and that the claims Dick] and although he was indulged in putting his indiof the South to the merit of passing, as well as conceiving vidual vote upon the Journal, to show his sentiments, acit, having been established, no further use would be made cording to the courtesy of the old Congress, yet that vote of that ordinance for the purpose of poisoning the West was the act of an individual, not of a State, the vote of against the South. In this hope and belief he had found which could not be counted without the presence and himself mistaken; and the publication of the printed de-concurrence of two members, and the vote of Mr. Dick New gia-7.) THE JOURNAL. [MAY 21, 1830. "Wednesday, July 11th, 1787. was not counted. The second of these errors is, in say- had joined; its third on the day ensuing; having gone ing that seven States voted in the affirmative on that occa- through all the forms of legislation, and become a law in sion. There were but six so voting. The third, in say- three days; receiving the vote of the eight States present, ing that the consent of nine States was necessary to retain and the vote of every individual member from each State, this clause-a mistake which grows out of a confused un- except one, and that one from a free State north of the derstanding of the powers of the Congress of the Confede- Potomac. Mr. B. then read the Journal of the Congress ration, which required different numbers to transact dif- of the Confederation, to prove the truth of this decisive ferent degrees of business. Business of the highest order, and overwhelming statement. as the declaration of war, the conclusion of peace, the negotiation of treaties, levying taxes, borrowing money, &c. required the consent of nine States; but the act of seven was sufficient for ordinary legislation, and of this charac- 66 Congress assembled: Present, the seven States aboveter was the ordinance in question. The fourth mistake, mentioned." (Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and the most material of the smaller ones, was, in saying Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Geor that Mr. King's proposition was rejected by the vote of the Southern States. The fact is, it was not rejected at "The Committee, consisting of Mr. Carrington, (of all. It was adopted, and so stated in the Journal, (vol. 4, Virginia,) Mr. Dane, (of Massachusetts,) Mr. R. H. Lee, p. 482.) The fifth error is, in ascribing to Mr. King the (of Virginia,) Mr. Kean, (of South Carolina,) and Mr. merit of providing the adequate and thorough security for Smith, (of New York,) to whom was referred the report the exclusion of slavery by compact, and making it a fun-of a committee touching the temporary government of damental principle in the constitutions of the new States, the Western Territory, reported an ordinance for the gounalterable but by the consent of the old ones; that iden-vernment of the Territory of the United States northtical provision being a part of the ordinance reported by west of the river Ohio; which was read a first time. Mr. Jefferson, in the preceding year, not as an adjunct to "Ordered, That to-morrow be assigned for the second the non-slavery clause alone, but as a security for all the reading." articles in the ordinance, placed at the end of the ordinance when first drawn up, and now standing at the head of the six articles of compact, in the ordinance, as passed in 1787, (vol. 4, p. 380, 753.) A sixth error of this brief paragraph is, in supposing that the ordinance reported by Mr. Jefferson did not pass into a law, when the fact is that it did pass, and that, in five days after, the non-slavery clause was rejected, and without any motion to reinstate that clause, although eleven States were then| present, (Mr. Beatty, of New Jersey, having joined his colleague,) and, of these eleven States, eight were from the north of the Potomac, and three from the south; seven were non-slaveholding, and four otherwise. The competent number of non-slaveholding States were present, to do what they pleased with the ordinance; and they pleased to let pass without an effort or a motion to reinstate the non-slavery clause. The votes were--New follows:" Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, [Here follows the whole ordinance, in the very words New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Vir in which it now appears among the laws of the United ginia, and North Carolina, in the affirmative; South Caro- States, with the non-slavery clause, the provisions in falina in the negative; Georgia and Delaware absent.-vor of schools and education, against impairing the ob(Same page.) ligation of contracts, laying the foundation and security of all these stipulations in compact, and repealing the ordinance of 23d of April, 1784--the one reported by Mr. Jefferson.] "Thursday, July 12th, 1787. Congress assembled: Present, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. (8.) "According to order, the ordinance for the govern ment of the Territory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio, was read a second time. "Ordered, That to-morrow be assigned for the third reading of said ordinance." "Friday, July 13th, 1787. "Congress assembled: Present, as yesterday. "According to order, the ordinance for the govern ment of the Territory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio, was read a third time, and passed as "On passing the above ordinance, the yeas and nays being required by Mr. Yates Massachusetts--Mr. Holten, aye; Mr. Dane, aye. New York--Mr. Smith, aye; Mr. Yates, no; Mr. Haring, aye. New Jersey--Mr. Clarke, aye; Mr. Schureman, aye. Delaware--Mr. Kearney, aye; Mr. Mitchell, aye. Virginia-Mr. Grayson, aye; Mr. R. H. Lee, aye; Mr. Carrington, aye. Having passed rapidly over the enumeration and detection of these subaltern mistakes, Mr. B. proceeded to the great and cardinal error-the supreme mischief-maker of the whole set--which had put him upon his feet, viz. the reiterated assertion that the ordinance of '87 was the work of the North, and not of the South, and was passed into a law by the perseverance of the former. This was the great mistake which it was his business to overthrow, and overthrow it he would; for the naked, undeniable, and unimpeachable truth was, that the merit of passing, as well as of conceiving, this ordinance, belonged to the South, and so the journals would prove to the conviction of every mind that was capable of receiving the impressions of truth. The parts of the journal already quoted show that the non-slavery clause, and the original idea of laying the security, for all the stipulations in the ordinance, in the deep and immovable foundation of compact, originated with Mr. Jefferson. The parts which remain Mr. B. resumed, saying, look into this vote, and ana to be quoted, will show, that, in July, 1787, when only lyze it. How many slave States were present? Five. seven States were present, and five of these slaveholding, How many free ones? Three. How many slave States and four of them from the south of the Potomac, the absent? None. How many free ones? Five. How ma ordinance, as it now stands, was reported by a committee ny States present from the south of the Potomac? Four. of five members, of whom three were from slaveholding How many from States, and two from Virginia alone, and one of them the sent from each? chairman; that it received its first reading the day it was New England. reported; its second the next day, when one other State dividual votes? North Carolina--Mr. Blount, aye; Mr. Hawkins, aye. So it was resolved in the affirmative." (Page 754, volume 4.) New England? One. How many ab None from the South; all but one from Which gave the greatest number of inVirginia--that same Virginia which fur |