Слике страница
PDF
ePub

APPENDIX.

A.

On reviewing the preceding history, the articles of compact appearing in page 223, and the temporary provisions sufficiently detailed for the purposes of general history, it seems unnecessary to republish the act of 1785-6.

B.

Extract from the act of 1787.

"The convention shall be held at Danville on the third Monday of September ensuing, or whenever thereafter a sufficient number shall be assembled. Five members assembled shall be a sufficient number to adjourn from day to day, and . to issue writs for supplying vacancies which may happen from deaths, resignations, or refusals to act. A majority of the whole shall be a sufficient number to choose a president and other proper officers, to settle the proper rules of proceeding, to authorize any number of members to summon a convention during a recess, and to act in all other instances, where a greater number is not expressly required. Two-thirds of the whole shall be a sufficient number to determine whether it is expedient for, and be the will of the good people of the said district, that the same be erected into an independent state, on the terms and conditions specified in the act above recited: Provided, That no vote shall be considered as deciding this question either in the affirmative or negative, unless a majority of the whole number to be elected shall concur therein.

"And provided, That in case two-thirds of the whole shall not assemble within fifteen days after the day appointed for the meeting, a decision in which a majority of the whole shall concur, shall be valid although the number present be less than two-thirds of the whole."

C.

"Mr. Brown made his communications; now let us see if they were correct. The application of Kentucky for admission into the union, as a state, was made when the change of the federal constitution was in progress. Previous to the 3d of July, 1788, ten states had ratified the new constitution; on that day the old congress declined the admission of Kentucky, and referred her to the new congress, about to be formed. Upon this Mr. Brown insinuates, that the reason assigned for this measure is not the true one; for that would vanish with the organization of the new government, and Kentucky would of course be received into the union. But Mr. Brown says there is another reason against admitting Kentucky into the union, which will exist under the new government. What is the inference? Plainly this: those who have the power of admission, act upon one reason, and assign another. They are insincere, and unfriendly-and they will continue so after the new government takes place. They have rejected the admission of Kentucky into the union, and they will continue to do so. Were these insinuations and opinions bottomed on fact, and correct observations? were they the secrets of the private conferences which Mr. Brown held with Gardoqui? The experiment proved, that they were not the former: the probability is, that they were the latter. The new constitution took effect, and Kentucky was admitted into the union, without difficulty. But suspicion had been excited, unfriendly sentiments felt, and illiberal jealousies entertained, between the eastern and western parts of the union. These are the necessary forerunners of disunion. If we perceive in Mr. Brown an end, we cannot fail to observe him preparing the If he is in favor of the separation of Kentucky from the union; we find him setting the proper engines at work, to effect his purposes. Men who should live in mutual confidence and friendship, were taught to suspect, and to hate each other. At this stage in the progress of intrigue, what should we expect, but disunion? Accordingly we find Mr. Brown recommending

means.

a declaration of independence, that is, a separation of Kentucky from the parent state, and from the federal union, in violation of the most sacred obligations, and contrary to law, and to the constitution.

"What are the next objects with which Mr. Brown presents us by his letter? A foreign nation—a monarchical government; a Spanish minister-ready to receive us; and with a proper person to enter into a treaty of navigation for export, to mutual advantage.

"Thirty thousand people were to renounce the benefits of the American union, with their neighbours-their natural connexions--and their political friends--to forfeit their peace; and to incur the terrors of civil war-For what? Why truly to crown with success the clandestine and traitorous projects of Mr. Brown-projects by which Kentucky would have been put out of the union, and completely within the power and control of Spain.

"The ostensible object was a commercial treaty with Spain, of mutual advantage to Kentucky and Spain, which was unattainable while Kentucky remained a part of the union. But did ever thirty thousand people make a commercial treaty, with twelve millions to equal advantage? Spain, possessing the mouths of the Mississippi, the whole of one side, and a large portion of the other, would have had the people of Kentucky perfectly within her power.

"Spain would have regulated the navigation, and the commerce of the country at her pleasure. So says the experience of all ages. But Kentucky could not have retained her independence and enjoyed the free commerce of the Mississippi!! What says Mr. Brown? He says, that Kentucky could not have this commerce as a part of the United States, by reason of commercial treaties with other powers-that is, Spain had treaties with other powers, which entitled them to the privileges of the most favoured nation. If then Spain granted to the United States as a nation, the right of export and free commerce on the Mississippi, those other nations became by their existing treatics entitled to the same privileges. And

this, Spain would not permit-Now apply this to Kentucky as separated from the union, and as an independent nationWould not a treaty made by Spain with Kentucky, in which Kentucky as an independent nation, should be allowed the free navigation of the Mississippi, equally entitle all those other nations with whom Spain had existing treaties, to the free navigation also, as completely as if the treaty had been made with the United States? Most assuredly it would. Most assuredly the United States as to Spain was but one nation. Kentucky, as an independent nation, could not have been less than one. The same treaties therefore which prevented Spain from yielding the navigation of the Mississippi to the United States, would equally prevent her from yielding it to Kentucky as an independent state. Mr. Brown presents this dilemma-Kentucky, separated from the union, was not to be independent of Spain: as she was not to have the free navigation of the Mississippi, but as a dependent on Spain. As a colony, or province of the monarchy, Kentucky would present no difficulty, on account of existing treaties. For Spain had uo treaty which restrained her from permitting her own subjects the free navigation of the river.

"These considerations are well deserving the serious atten tion of the people of Kentucky. They merit the closest examination. For if there be not a fallacy in them, they demonstrate the most perfect conspiracy, not only against the United States, but against the political independence of this country."

D.

"That we may have a proper view of these subjects, I will cite a law of Virginia, which passed in 1785, and which was in force in 1788, entitled "An act punishing certain offences, and vesting the governor with certain powers."

"Sec. 1. Whereas it is the true interest and policy of this commonwealth, that the constitution, sovereignty, and independence thereof, should at all times be maintained and supported, and it is highly criminal in any person or persons, to

alienate the citizens of the state from their attachment and allegiance to the same:

"Sec. 2. Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, &c. [For the substance of this section, see Judge Muter's letter, page 295.]

"Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That every person who shall attempt to establish such government by any other means than with the assent of the legislature of this commonwealth, and in pursuance of such attempts, shall join with any other person or persons in any overt act, for promoting such attempts, or who shall by writing, or advised speaking, endeavour to instigate the people of this commonwealth to erect, or establish such government without such assent as aforesaid, soll be adjudged guilty of a high crime, and misdemeanor, ed on conviction shall be subject to such pains and penalties not extending to life or member, as the court before who the conviction shall be had, shall adjudge.

"Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That in case any combination to establish such government shall become so powerful as to obstruct the due execution of the laws of this commonwealth, in the ordinary course of proceeding, within any county or counties thereof, it shall and may be lawful for the governor with the advice of the council, to call out the militia of the state to suppress such combination, and to employ them in the manner as he may do by law in cases of invasion or insurrection."

"Thus we see, what was the sense of Virginia with respect to the erection of independent government within her limits, and without her previous consent obtained for that purpose. We see her sense of high crimes, and misdemeanors, inferior to high treason. We see that in case any combination for the purpose of establishing such government, had become so powerful as to obstruct the due execution of the laws of Virginia, (which must have been the case if Kentucky had been declared independent, as Mr. Brown advised,) that the governor was authorized to call out the militia of the state, that great palladium of liberty, and defence of a free country, and to have em. ployed it, as in case of invasion or insurrection. And who can

« ПретходнаНастави »