powerful cement, and outweighing any political objections that might be urged against the system. In his opinion the liberty and the union of this country were insepa-S rably united. That, as the destruction of the latter would most certainly involve the former, so its maintenance will, with equal certainty, preserve it. He did not speak lightly. He had often and long revolved it in his mind, and he had critically examined into the causes that destroyed the liberty of other states. There are none that apply to us, or apply with a force to alarm. The basis of our republic is too broad, and its structure too strong, to be shaken by them. Its extension and organization will be found to afford effectual security against their operation; but let it be deeply impressed on the heart of this House and country, that, while they guarded against the old, they exposed us to a new and terrible danger, Disunion. This single word comprehended. almost the sum of our political dangers; and against it we ought to be perpetually guarded.

SPEECH

On the Compensation Bill, delivered in the House of Representatives, Jan. 17th, 1817.

[NOTE.-March 4th, 1816. Mr. Johnson of Kentucky moved the appointment of a Special Committee to inquire into the expediency of changing the mode of compensating Members of Congress, from a per diem to an annual allowance; and on March 6th, as its chairman, reported a Bill fixing the amount at $1,500 per session. The debate, which continued until late on March 8th, when it was passed by a vote of 81 to 67, was animated and, in some respects, acrimonious. No question, apparently so trivial, ever produced so general an excitement through the country. The measure was de

nounced every where, from the hustings, in the primary assemblies of the people, and even by the Legislatures of many of the States. The storm raged so violently that, early in the ensuing session of Congress, a Bill on the motion of Mr. Johnson was introduced to repeal the obnoxious Act, which, after some opposition, passed January 23d, 1817.]

The

I HOPE the House will not agree to fill the blanks with six dollars, as reported by the Committee of the Whole. I have remained silent thus long, not that I agree with those who think this a trivial question, but because I was anxious, in ultimately making up my mind, to profit by the observations of others. I have now, however, finally decided on the course I intend to pursue. If the blank should be filled with a sum fully equal to the present pay, I shall vote for the bill on its passage ;—not that, in itself, I prefer the daily to the annual pay; for on this point, my opinion remains unaltered. I believe the latter, for several reasons not necessary to repeat, to be in itself preferable. daily, however, has one advantage at present over the other mode; it has a better prospect of being permanent. If the pay be left in its present form, it will most certainly be repealed by the next Congress, whatever may be the feelings of a majority of that body, as to the mode or amount. They will not be free agents-most of them being already committed in the canvass for a seat in this House. But should the mode be changed and the amount retained, the very men who have turned out the most of us, who have been the agitators in the late elections will, in all probability, become the pacificators; for we may be perfectly assured of one fact, that the feelings of those gentlemen are very different now from what they were before the elections. If you change the mode, they will seize the opportunity, and assert that you have now done what ought originally to have been done. Should the blank not be filled with an adequate sum,-say nine or ten dollars a day,-I shall vote against the passage of

the bill, so as to retain the present law. But if it must come to a repeal, I would prefer it to take place after the 4th of March next, so as to leave the subject entirely open for the next Congress. Such is the course which my judgment admonishes me to pursue.

It has more than once been said, that this is not an important subject. If the observation be made in reference to the members who now compose this body, I readily assent. To them it is a trivial subject. They are free agents, and if they find the sacrifice too considerable, they can, at any moment, return to those private pursuits, so much more profitable, and, in many respects, desirable. We then, as individuals, have no right to complain, should the pay be reduced to the smallest amount. But there is another aspect of this subject, of a very different character. The question of adequate, or inadequate compensation to the members of Congress, is, if I am not greatly mistaken, intimately connected with the very essence of our liberty. This House is the foundation of the fabric of that liberty. So happy is its constitution, that, in all instances of a general nature, its duty and its interest are inseparable. If I understand correctly the structure of our Government, the prevailing principle is not so much a balance of power as a well connected chain of responsibility. This responsibility commences here, and this House is the centre of its operation. The members are elected for two years only; and, at the end of that period, are responsible to their constituents for the faithful discharge of their public duties. Besides, the very structure of the House is admirably calculated to unite interest and duty. The members of Congress have, in their individual capacity, no power or prerogative. These attach to the entire body assembled here, and acting under certain set forms. We then, as individuals, are not less amenable to the laws which we enact, than the humblest citizen. Such is the responsibility such the structure-such the sure foundation of

our liberty. If we turn our attention to what are called the co-ordinate branches of our Government, we find them very differently constructed. The judiciary is in no degree responsible to the people immediately. To Congress to this body is the whole of their responsibility. Such too, in a great measure, is the theory of our Government, as applied to the executive branch. It is true the President is elected for a term of years; but that term is twice the length of ours; and, besides, his election is, in point of fact, removed in all of the States three degrees from the people. The electors in many of the States, are chosen by the State Legislatures; and where that is not formally the case, it is nevertheless in point of fact effected through the agency of those bodies. But what mainly distinguishes the legislative and executive branches, as regards their actual responsibility to the people, is the nature of their operation. It is the duty of the former to enact laws, of the latter to execute them. Every citizen of ordinary information, is capable, in a greater or less degree, of forming an opinion of the propriety of the law-and, consequently, of judging whether Congress has or has not done its duty; but of the execution of the laws, they are far less competent to judge. How can the community judge, whether the President, in appointing officers to execute the laws, has in all cases been governed by fair and honest motives, or by favor and corruption? How much less competent is it to judge whether the application of the public money has been made with economy and fidelity, or with extravagance and dishonesty! These are facts that can be fully investigated, and brought before the public by Congress, and Congress only. Hence it is that the constitution has made the President responsible to Congress. This, then, is the essence of our liberty: Congress is responsible to the people immediately, and the other branches of the Government are responsible to it. What, then, becomes of the theory of the Government, if the President holds

offices in his gift, which, as regards honor or profit, are more desirable than a seat in this House, the only office immediately in the gift of the people

[Here Mr. C. checked himself.]

I find myself committing an unpardonable error, in presenting arguments to this body. The ear of this House, on this subject, is closed to truth and reason. What has produced this magic spell? Instructions! Well, then, has it come to this? Have the people of this country snatched the power of deliberation from this body? Have they resolved the Government into its original elements, and resumed their primitive power of legislation? Are we, then, a body of individual agents, and not a deliberative one, without the power, but possessing the form of legislation? If such be the fact, let gentlemen produce their instructions, properly authenticated. Let them name the time and place at which the people assembled and deliberated on this question. Oh, no! they have no written, no verbal instructions; but they have implied instructions. The law is unpopular, and they are bound to repeal it, in opposition to their consciences and reason. Have gentlemen reflected on the consequences of this doctrine? Are we bound in all cases to do what is popular? If this be true, how are political errors, once prevalent, ever to be corrected? Suppose a party to spring up in this country, whose real views should be the destruction of liberty; suppose that, by management, by the patronage of offices, by the corruption of the press, they should delude the people, and obtain a majority (and surely such a state of things is not impossible); what, then, will be the effect of this doctrine? Ought we to sit quiet? Ought we to be dumb? or, rather, ought we to approve, though we see that liberty is to be ingulfed ? This doctrine. of implied instruction, if I am not mistaken, is a new one, for the first time broached in this House; and, if I am not

VOL. II.-12