dethroned Bonaparte put an end to that state of things, and left all the powers of Europe free to resume their former commercial pursuits. He saw in all this that the time had come to free the government entirely from the shackles of the restrictive system, to which he had been so long opposed; and he, accordingly, "followed up his speech by a bill to repeal the Embargo and the Non-importation Act. He rested their repeal on the ground that they were a portion of the restrictive policy, and showed that the ground on which it had been heretofore sustained was, that it was a pacific policy, growing out of the extraordinary state of the world at the time it was adopted, and, of course, dependent on the continuance of that state. 'It was a time,' he said, when every power on the Continent was arrayed against Great Britain, under the overwhelming influence of Bonaparte, and no country but ours interested in maintaining neutral rights. The fact of all the Continental ports being closed against her, gave to our restrictive measures an efficacy which they no longer had, now that they were open to her.' He admitted that the system had been continued too long, and been too far extended, and that he was opposed to it as a substitute for war, but contended that there would be no inconsistency on the part of the government in abandoning a policy founded on a state of things which no longer existed. But now,' said he, 'the Continental powers are neutrals, as between us and Great Britain. We are contending for the freedom of trade, and ought to use every exertion to attach to our cause Russia, Sweden, Holland, Denmark, and all other nations which have an interest in

the freedom of the seas. The maritime rights assumed by Great Britain infringe on the rights of all neutral powers, and if we should now open our ports and trade to the nations of the Continent, it would involve Great Britain in a very awkward and perplexing dilemma. She must either permit us to enjoy a very lucrative commerce with them, or by attempting to exclude them from our ports by her system of paper blockades she would force them to espouse our cause. The option which would thus be tendered her would so embarrass her as to produce a stronger desire for peace than ten years' continuance of the present system, imperative as it is now rendered by a change of circumstances."*

No one can now look back to that stirring period at which these words were uttered, uninfluenced by the passions and prejudices of the day, which it is but natural to suppose may have in some degree warped the best and wisest judgments, without being struck with the almost prophetic character of the remarks of Mr. Calhoun. His vision seemed to o'ertop passing events, and to take in at a single glance the future with all the valuable lessons, in the fulfilment as in the disappointment of hopes and expectations, which it had in store

* Memoir of Mr. Calhoun, 1843.

CHAPTER IV.

Reëlection of Mr. Calhoun-Results of the War-The Commercial Treaty-Course of Mr. Calhoun-His Speech-The United States Bank-Mr. Dallas' Bill-Opposition of Mr. Calhoun to this Measure -Its Defeat-Chairman of the Committee on the Currency-Report of a Bank Bill-Speech-Passage of the Bill.

So well pleased were the constituents of Mr. Calhoun with the manner in which he had discharged his duties as a member of Congress, during that important juncture in the affairs of the national government, the main incidents of which have been detailed, that he was returned without opposition, in the fall of 1812, and again in 1814, to the thirteenth and fourteenth Congresses.

Until the close of the war he remained the firm and steadfast advocate of decisive measures, yet when a favorable peace had been concluded he hailed it as the harbinger of good to the country, and especially as it was the signal of her release from the thraldom of foreign influence. The results of the contest were manifold, and in several important respects they af fected the political action and conduct of Mr. Calhoun. If strict chronological order were essential to be ob served, the subject of the charter of the United States Bank would be first in time, but as that is unnecessary, the Commercial Treaty with Great Britain and

the debate which took place thereon in Congress, seem naturally to follow the conclusion of the war.

Immediately after the ratification of the treaty was made public, and the appearance of the proclamation of the President, a bill was introduced into the House of Representatives by Mr. Forsyth, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, providing for carrying the treaty into effect, or, in other words, declaring that the laws in regard to the imposition and collection of duties, not consistent with the provisions of the treaty or convention, were repealed. A long and interesting debate arose upon the merits of this bill, in the course of which Mr. Calhoun delivered an able and argumentative speech, which is thus reported in the National Intelligencer:

Mr. Calhoun observed, that the votes on this bill had been ordered to be recorded, and that the house would see, in his peculiar situation, a sufficient apology for his offering his reasons for the rejection of the bill. He had no disposition to speak on this bill, as he felt contented to let it take that course, which, in the opinion of the majority, it ought, till the members were called on by the order of the house to record their votes.

The question presented for consideration is perfectly simple, and easily understood; is this bill necessary to give validity to the late treaty with Great Britain? It appeared to him, that this question is susceptible of a decision, without considering whether a treaty can in any case set aside a law; or, to be more particular, whether the treaty which this bill purposes to carry into effect, does repeal the discriminating duties. The house will remember that a law was passed at the close of the last session, conditionally repealing those duties. That act proposed to repeal them in relation to any nation, which would on its part agree to repeal similar duties as to this country. On the contingency happening, the law became positive. It has happened, and has been announced to the country, that England has agreed to repeal. The President, in proclaiming the treaty, has notified the fact to the house

and country. Why then propose to do that by this bill, which has already been done by a previous act? He knew it had been said in conversation, that the provisions of the act were not as broad as the treaty. It did not strike him so. They appeared to him to be commensurate. He would also reason from the appearance of this house, that they were not very deeply impressed with the necessity of this bill. He never, on any important occasion, saw it so indifferent. Whence could this arise? From the want of importance? If, indeed, the existence of the treaty depended on the passage of this bill, nothing scarcely could be more interesting. It would be calculated to excite strong feelings. We all know how the country was agitated when Jay's treaty was before this house. The question was on an appropriation to carry it into effect; a power acknowledged by all to belong to the house; and on the exercise of which, the existence of the treaty was felt to depend. The feelings manifested corresponded with this conviction. Not so on this occasion. Farther, the treaty has already assumed the form of law. It is so proclaimed to the community; the words of the proclamation are not material; it speaks for itself; and if it means anything, it announces the treaty as a rule of public conduct, as a law exacting the obedience of the people. Were he of the opposite side, if he indeed believed this treaty to be a dead letter till it received the sanction of Congress, he would lay the bill on the table, and move an inquiry into the fact, why the treaty has been proclaimed as a law before it had received the proper sanction. It is true, the Executive has transmitted a copy of the treaty to the house; but has he sent the negotiation? Has he given any light to judge why it should receive the sanction of this body? Do gentlemen mean to say that information is not needed; that though we have the right to pass laws to give validity to treaties, yet we are bound by a moral obligation to pass such laws? To talk of the right of this house to sanction treaties, and at the same time to assert that it is under a moral obligation not to withhold that sanction, is a solecism. No sound mind that understands the terms can possibly assent to it. He would caution the house, while it was extending its powers to cases which he believed did not belong to it, to take care lest it should lose its substantial and undoubted power. He would put it on its guard against the dangerous doctrine, that it can in any case become a mere registering body. Another fact, in regard to this treaty. It does not stipulate that a law should pass to repeal the duties proposed to be repealed by this bill, which would be its proper form, if in the opinion of