tendency in our system to degenerate into this diseased state; and I will venture to repeat it cannot be done too often), what is stated in the report, that whenever the Executive patronage shall become sufficiently strong to form a party based on its influence exclusively, the liberty of the country, should that state of things continue for any considerable period, must be lost. We would make a great mistake were we to suppose that, because the Government of Great Britain can maintain its freedom under an immense patronage, ours also can. The genius of the two governments in this particular is wholly dissimilar; so much so as to form a perfect contrast. It is the feature by which they are most distinguished. No free government that ever existed could maintain its liberty under so much patronage as that of Great Britain, and there are few that could not bear more than ours. But, said Mr. C., it is a great subject, which I cannot enter upon on the present occasion. I return to the objection which the Senator made to the statement of the expenditures of the year 1833. I could not be ignorant, said Mr. C., in making a movement against Executive patronage, that I would bring down upon me the vengeance of that great and powerful corps now held together by this single cohesive principle-a principle as flexible as India rubber, and as tough too. The history of the world proves that he who attempts reformation, attempts it at no small hazard. I know the relation which the Senator bears to the dominant party. He is identified with them,

[Here Mr. Benton said, Mrs. Royal says so; to which Mr. C. replied, she says truly; and proceeded,]

and is their organ on the present occasion. His position compels him to adopt the course he has pursued.

There remain, then, only two items of the seven millions to be deducted certain refunded duties, and the payment under the Danish convention, amounting to less than one

million and a half, which, if they were paid during the year, may be deducted as of an extraordinary nature, and for which the administration is not responsible; and thus the seven millions of the Senator dwindles down to about onefifth of the amount, and the expenditures of the year, after being freed of all the items of which it can justly be, will give an increase of expenditure in the year 1833, over that of 1822, of $11,429,750.

When the report asserted, said Mr. C., that the period from 1823 to 1833, was one of profound peace, to which the Senator so violently objects, the committee were not ignorant of the disturbance with Black Hawk and his followers, on our northwest frontier, which the Senator has attempted to dignify by calling it a war. If my memory serves me, it was limited to a single tribe, headed by a single chief, and did not extend to the nation to which he belonged, and lasted but a few months; and it is in vain for the Senator from Missouri to impeach the correctness of the report, which asserts the period to be one of profound peace, by calling to our recollection this paltry affair, which originated in the misconduct of the administration, and has swelled into the little magnitude which it attained, by its mismanagement. The Senator from Missouri endeavors to escape from the inconsistency in which he is placed by his report in 1826 and his present position. He says that I was mistaken in placing his defence of General Jackson's removals from office on political grounds, on the principle of retaliation; that it was not on that principle, but that of equalizing the offices between the parties. I, said Mr. C., have not the sagacity to perceive the difference as applied to the present case, or by what possibility the Senator can escape from the inconsistency in which he is involved, by substituting the one for the other. What are the facts? In 1826, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Executive Patronage, he made a report, in which he condemned the principle of removal from

office in the severest terms, more severe than those used in the present report. He traced its destructive tendency to the great increase which it was calculated to give to Executive patronage, and pronounced the exercise of the power by the President to be unconstitutional; and now, when the present administration has carried the exercise of this very power, thus condemned by the Senator, more than thirtyfold beyond any or all preceding administrations, the Senator ventures to rest his vindication of the administration and his support of it on the ground of equalization-equalization! What allusion, what exception did the Senator make in favor of equalization in his report ? and how can equalization any more than retaliation justify a violation of the constitution.

Mr. C. said, I regret that I have been forced to the discussion of these topics on the present bill, in reference to which the committee is unanimous; but the extraordinary course of the Senator from Missouri, his bold and unfounded charges and unwarranted imputations, compel me to adopt the course which I have. I now hope that the bill may be allowed to proceed, and that further discussion on the merits of the report will be postponed to some future and more suitable occasion.

SPEECH

On the Abolition Petitions, delivered in the Senate, March 9th, 1836.

[The question of receiving the petitions from Pennsylvania for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, being under consideration:-]

MR. CALHOUN rose, and said: If we may judge from what has been said, the mind of the Senate is fully made up on the subject of these petitions. With the exception of the

VOL. II.-30

two Senators from Vermont, all who have spoken have avowed their conviction, not only that they contain nothing requiring the action of the Senate, but that the petitions are highly mischievous, as tending to agitate and distract the country, and to endanger the Union itself. With these concessions, I may fairly ask, why should these petitions be received? Why receive, when we have made up our mind not to act? Why idly waste our time and lower our dignity in the useless ceremony of receiving to reject, as is proposed, should the petitions be received? Why finally receive what all acknowledge to be highly dangerous and mischievous ? But one reason has or can be assigned-that not to receive would be a violation of the right of petition, and, of course, that we are bound to receive, however objectionable and dangerous the petitions may be. If such be the fact, there is an end to the question. As great as would be the advantage to the abolitionists, if we are bound to receive—if it would be a violation of the right of petition not to receive, we must acquiesce. On the other hand, if it shall be shown, not only that we are not bound to receive, but that to receive on the ground on which it has been placed, would sacrifice the constitutional rights of this body, would yield to the abolitionists all they could hope at this time, and would surrender all the outworks by which the slaveholding States can defend their rights and property HERE, then an unanimous rejection of these petitions ought of right to follow.

The decision, then, of the question now before the Senate is reduced to the single point-Are we bound to receive these petitions? Or, to vary the form of the question— Would it be a violation of the right of petition not to receive them?

When the ground was first taken that it would be a violation, I could scarcely persuade myself that those who took it were in earnest, so contrary was it to all my conceptions of the rights of this body, and the provisions of the

constitution; but finding it so earnestly maintained, I have since carefully investigated the subject, and the result has been a confirmation of my first impression, and a conviction that the claim of right is without shadow of foundation. The question, I must say, has not been fairly met. Those opposed to the side which we support, have discussed the question as if we denied the right of petition, when they could not but know that the true issue is not as to the existence of the right, which is acknowledged by all, but its extent and limits, which not one of our opponents has so much as attempted to ascertain. What they have declined doing I undertake to perform.

There must be some point, all will agree, where the right of petition ends, and that of this body begins. Where is that point? I have examined this question carefully, and I assert boldly, without the least fear of refutation, that, stretched to the utmost, the right cannot be extended beyond the presentation of a petition, at which point the rights of this body commence. When a petition is presented, it is before the Senate. It must then be acted on. Some disposition must be made of it before the Senate can proceed to the consideration of any other subject. This no one will deny. With the action of the Senate its right commencesa right secured by an express provision of the constitution, which vests each House with the authority of regulating its own proceedings, that is, of determining by fixed rules the order and form of its action. To extend the right of petition beyond presentation, is clearly to extend it beyond that point where the action of the Senate commences, and, as such, is a manifest violation of its constitutional rights. Here then we have the limits between the right of petition and the right of the Senate to regulate its proceedings clearly fixed, and so perfectly defined as not to admit of mistakeand I would add of controversy, had it not been questioned in this discussion.