網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

H. of R.]

Niagara Sufferers.

[DEC. 29, 1824.

He understood the gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. ing to a certain extent. But, secondly, and principally, WILLIAMS,) as maintaining that the destruction of New. that the Government was bound by an obligation in all [Mr. respects perfect; so perfect, that, if the same obligaark by the American troops was a justifiable act. WILLIAMS explained, that he had only referred to the re- tion existed between two private individuals, it might be port of Gen. M'CLURE.] But whether it was, or was not, pursued and enforced in a court of law. the enemy themselves had avowed that they destroyed the buildings because they had been used and occupied by our army.

On the first of these points, he felt assured that the peculiar circumstances of those whose cause it was his duty to plead, and for whose sufferings a remedy was Mr. T. denied that he had misunderstood the provi- proposed by the bill, must, when duly considered, be sions of the acts of 1816 or 1817, or had misrepre-owned to create an obligation which, though it might sented them, as the gentleman from North Carolina no be of a legal kind, was nevertheless something more seemed to suppose. He contended that the law of than a mere appeal to humanity. Were it, indeed, no 1816 covered the whole ground on which the claimants more, it ought not to be disregarded; for a government rested their demands. They asked for no better law-is, in this respect, in the same situation as a private infor no new principle. They only sought to have that dividual-it must be humane, if it can, even where no act carried into effect. They only wished for some tri- connection whatever has previously existed between bunal that could decide according to its provisions. But the sufferer and its own acts. Suppose, for illustration, this was denied them. After passing the act, Congress that the Niagara frontier, inst ad of being wasted by a had suspended its execution; and yet they suffered it savage en my, had suffered equal injury by an earthto stand upon the statute book as if in mockery of the quake. Could there be a question, that, in such a case, complaints and the sufferings of a large class of our fel- there would exist an obligation on the Government to low citizens. The principle laid down by the gentle- afford what relief was in its power? Could he not refer man from Virginia, was the very principle of that law- to more than one example in which the Government had it was an honest principle-such as every man would ap- done this, not only to its own citizens, but even to forUnder eigners? The people of New Madrid, in Missouri, when ply to his neighbor, and in his own concerns. that law a tribunal was appointed to adjudge these suffering from the effect of earthquakes in that portion claims, and that tribunal had decided that these claims of the Union, had received relief from the Government; came within the law. This was the only judicial deci- and even the people of Venezuela, who resided at a sion on the subject before the House The law of 1817, distance from our boundary, had been relieved by the he insisted, confirmed the principle of that of 1816-nor government, in a still more liberal manner. Would any had he ever been able to find a case where the principle one deny that the Government in this case performed a it laid down was disputed or denied. The peculiar duty? The principle, then, of abstract benevolence, had hardship of these claimants was, that, while Congress attached to it a certain degree of obligation. laid down a rule, it refused them the means of bringing themselves within it. If Congress will only act on the principle of their own law, or will suffer others to act under it, it is all these sufferers ask. As to compelling each individual to come here with his petition, it is an endless business. Some tribunal should be erected with power to decide under the laws as they now exist. But, as he feared there was but little probability of this being done, the bill presumes that the cases adjudicated have been rightly decided, and proposes that the rest be settled on the same foundations.

But the claims of the Niagara sufferers did not rest on this ground. The fact that the destruction of their property was in consequence of some connection it had with the Government, and that the devastation thus brought upon them was great, and wide, and overwhelming, not only injuring, but ruining, those on whom it came, certainly entitled their case to a peculiar degree of regard, and created an obligation which exceeded in its strength that which he had before been considering. The gentleman from Virginia had certainly been correct in maintaining that the government was not strictly He admitted the force of what was said, as to a sup-bound in cases of mere humanity as in those of abstract posed case of buildings occupied the first day, and destroyed the last day, of the war-but he contended that all danger from this construction was obviated by the third section of the bill, which restricted that provision to the cases already adjudicated. It any gentleman was prepared to say that the cases which came fairly under the law of 1816 ought not to be paid, why not repeal the law? It should be either repealed or acted upon.

[At this stage of the debate, Mr. T. gave way for a motion for the committee to rise; and to-day resumed his remarks, of which the following is a summary account :]

justice. He knew how indefinite the nature and extent
of imperfect obligation was in itself, and had been left
Yet he
by the ordinary writers on these subjects.
might be pardoned in insisting that, in a case like that
before the committee, the policy of our country, the
nature of our Union, its design-all created a greater
obligation on a government like ours, than on Govern-
ments like those of Europe, to equalize public calami-
ties. Yet this too, he owned, was indefinite-no pre-
cise line could be laid down in reference to which it
could be said, Hitherto shalt thou come, and no farther.
But must we, therefore, do nothing?

It had repeatedly been urged by those who opposed In rising to address the House, Mr. T. observed, that, when, yesterday, called by a sense of duty to attempt a the bill, that other losses occasioned by the war, might reply to the objections which had been urged against as well demand indemnification as those on the Niagara the bill, he had labored under a sense of embarrasment, frontier. But, certainly, in obligations of this nature, which had, in some measure, caused him to do less just- there might be degrees arising from circumstances. ice to the subject committed to him than he might oth-The injuries occasioned by war, though widely spread, erwise have done, and he was not without a fear that the same cause might now produce a similar effect. He would, however, endeavor not to be diffuse in what he had to advance. His object had yesterday been, and still was, to shew that the principle of the measure contemplated by the bill was defensible on two grounds: 1. That the Government was, in this case, bound by that sort of obligation which had properly been stated by the learned gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. P. P. BAR BOU",) as an imperfect obligation, and which, though it certainly did not go to the extent of a perfect and legal obligation, was nevertheless to be recognized as bind

were sometimes slight. These, surely, did not create
such an appeal as when people bad literally been ruin-
ed-all their prospects of future comfort destroyed-
every hope prostrated. He would illustrate this princi-
The obligations of a father to an
ple by a familiar case.
adult child were not legally different from those he
Yet he would venture to say
owed to any other citizen.
that there was not one gentleman in this committee,
who, if that father's son should lose his all, and he were
utterly to refuse him relief, because he had another son
whose crop had been slightly injured, would not call
him a monster. The obligations of a Government were

[blocks in formation]

of the same nature; and it was no reason why it should not relieve some of its citizens, whose sufferings had been the greatest, that it could not relieve all who had in any degree suffered.

[H. of R.

had to buy---not to sell. There was, it is true, a great influx of public money---but they got little or none of it. The country farther back from the enemy might be enriched--but they, instead of being enriched, were ruined.

I hold, said Mr. T. that the imperfect obligation of which I have been speaking, is increased in proportion But it had been objected, that it was not good policy to the degree of connection of the property with the to grant this indemnity: 1st, because it would diminish Government which induced the loss. Now, by referring the ardor of our frontier citizens in defence of the counto the history of the late war, every one will be convinc- try and of their own property. Mr. T. said, he would' ed that, on the Niagara frontier, the connection of the not insist that patriotism was a higher and a stronger country with the Government, by military occupation, motive than the love of property; but the very fact, that existed to a far greater extent than on any other of the so many more persons presented claims on this Governfrontiers. The government, for its own purposes, hav-ment, than ever got any thing allowed them, was itself ing a general reference to the conducting of the war, sufficient to prevent any thing like indifference or secu. concentrated in that district of country a large number rity. He fancied there were but few men on that fronof troops, whose presence and accommodation gave the tier, or on any other, who would quietly suffer their whole frontier a military character. houses to be burnt, that they might afterwards have an The gentleman from Virginia had said, that, if there opportunity of coming to this House with a claim for inexisted no treaty stipulation respecting slaves, and the demnification. It had been urged, too, against the po losers of them should come to Congress with a demand licy of the bill, that, if once its principle was allowed, for indemnification, he should have opposed the de- the finances of the Government would be ruined. He mand on the same ground that he opposed the present saw no force in this argument. Should more resources bill. Now, said Mr. T. I have to reply, first, that the be required from the nation for such an object, he becase put by the gentleman does not arise, since there is lieved that nobody would object more to paying for it, a treaty stipulation with respect to slaves-(a stipula- than to paying for the support of the army, the navy, or tion by which apprehend other claims to a great the fortifications. The same objections might be urged amount have been sacrificed)—but if it had arisen, the against the one as the other. The man in the interior claim on this government for compensation for slaves might just as well say, I will not pay for the army; it is carried off would be far from equal in strength to that not needed; I will not pay for the navy-I have no conof the Niagara sufferers for their buildings destroyed.cern in commerce; I will not pay for the fortificationsA great difference exists as to the character of the pro- my farm is safe; as to say, I will not pay for the losses perty, the one being real, the other personal. An equal- on the frontier, because I do not live there. The right ly great difference respects the facility with which the of remuneration was not, indeed, so completely recogtwo kinds of property might be protected. There nized at present, as the demands of the army or navy; were other points in which they differed, which he but were it once adopted as the settled policy, to pay for would not stop to examine-but these were sufficient such losses, there would be no more difficulty in raising to show that the claim of those proposed to be benefit- funds for this purpose than is now experienced for the ed by the bill was much stronger than that of persons army or navy. who had lost their negroes.

The argument, that payment for such losses would inHe presumed it was unnecessary for him to go into a duce an enemy to make universal desolation of private long detail of facts to prove to the committee that the property, in order to ruin the financial means of the Gosufferings on the Niagara frontier had been of a most vernment, was equally unfounded. In addition to the poignant, severe, and aggravated kind. Whoever had fact, that the Government would make the indemnificathe least knowledge of the history of the war, could not|tion after the war was closed, and when the revenue reentertain a doubt on that subject. So far as extent of sources would justify, it might also be observed, that the human misery could go in giving validity to any claims, motive which restrains an enemy from acts of wanton these were most abundantly established. The gentle desolation, is not, that the loss by the citizen is not as man from North Carolina had, indeed, said, (he took no distressing to the country as a loss by the Government, notes of his speech, but quoted from it as reported,) but the fear of retaliation, the abhorrence of the whole that he had been credibly informed that that frontier had civilized world, and, he hoped, a proper sense of human been, on the whole, rather benefitted than injured by rights, which civilization and christianity had produced, being made, to the extent it was, the seat of war. Now, afforded the only protection against such outrages which the gentleman might have been credibly so informed, a Government could rely upon. but he could assure him not correctly. There could be In illustration that this principle of indemnification no greater mistake than to say that that region had been was not so altogether new as the gentleman had supposbenefitted by the war. If the gentleman gave the least ed, Mr. T. alluded to the fact, that the British Governcredit to history, he could not but know that the reverse ment had given to their Canadian subjects on the Niawas true-that, instead of being benefitted, it had suf-gara frontier, about $300,000, and had adopted other fered the utmost injury and distress by the war. The measures, by which a remuneration to the full extent of gentleman had said, that great opportunities were en- their losses was making. He then proceeded to show joyed of making money there-that the highest prices why the claims of our citizens on this Government were were obtained for commodities, and large amounts of much stronger than the Canadians were on theirs. In public money expended. He would not deny that, as to their case, there was no pretence of a perfect obligation; a certain portion of the country in the neighborhood of it was never pretended that the destruction of their prothat which was the immediate scene of war, this, to a perty was occasioned by its occupation by the Bricertain extent, might be true; but this fact, unhappily, tish; they had spent millions to defend them, had not increased instead of diminishing the suffering of these brought the war to their doors, and had ha no conclaimants. It was the highest aggravation of their suf- nexion with them, except for the purpose of defence. ferings. The highest prices were given for produce- But, with our Government, the case was totally differbut these persons were not agriculturists. Flour was, ent. Is the obligation of this Government to our citizens, indeed, selling at forty dollars per barrel---but they less, or its sympathies more cold, than the British Goraised none. Those of them who owned farms had vernment, to its remote colonial subjects? their farms immediately on the border utterly wasted. All pursuits of agriculture were interrupted, and the dearer provisions were, the worse it was for them. They

Adverting to the debate of yesterday; Mr. T. quoted the observation of Mr. BARBOUR, that if, by any act of the Government, individual property was withdrawn

H. of R.]

Niagara Sufferers.

[DEC. 29, 1824.

from its pacific position, by the Government, or,invested | quired a belligerant character. If the Government had with a warlike character, the Government was bound to indemnify the owners for any loss they might sustain by that act. So far the gentleman from Virginia-- who had thus acknowledged, that if the pacific character, which personal and individual property has attached to it, is changed, there is created, on the part of the Government, a distinct obligation, which he called a perfect obligation-such a one as, between individuals under similar circumstances, could be enforced in a court of justice. Now, I do firmly believe, said Mr. T. that the case of the Niagara claims is altogether sustainable upon this position of the gentleman from Virginia. That gentleman has come to the conclusion, indeed, that these claims do not come within his definition, but without any reference to the facts to see whether they do so or not. The proposition which I make is affirmative, that they do come within it, and I expected that the gentleman would have endeavored to show that they do not. But he did not do so. He seemed, after establishing his case of perfect right, to take it for granted that these cases had nothing to do with it, whereas, the circumstances of them do refer them to the very principle which the gentleman laid down.

had, as, in theory at least, it ought to have had, places for the protection of its property, and barracks to shelter its troops, whenever it carried on its military operations, and those places had been occupied, instead of the private buildings, by the troops and stores of the ar my, then the destruction of the private buildings would have assumed a very different character. The policy of the Government, however, having made this ground the scene of war, without these ordinary appendages to a military frontier, the houses of individuals were made to serve the purposes of public buildings.

The true question for the House to determine, in regard to these claims, said Mr. T. is, was there any act of this Government, relating to the property destroyed, which induced a change of its pacific character, and clothed it with a warlike character, and did that change produce its destruction? If this change was thus effected, it is a rule, prescribed by common sense and justice, admitted by the gentleman from Virginia himself, that the claimants ought to be indemnified. It is not for ns to dive into the recesses of the human heart, to search for the motives which lead to that destruction of property. For, if there was a just cause for this destruction of property by the enemy, we ought not to advert to other transactions, in other times and places, to account for it.

What, Mr. T. asked, was the natural conclusion of the enemy from this state of things? They reasoned to themselves, that, in destroying those buildings, thus used, they would not merely destitute that frontier, but protect their own territory. This was the unanswerable conclusion to which, upon the facts before them, military men would necessarily come.

In regard to the general nature of the operations on the Niagara frontier, during the late war, Mr. T. proceeded to show, that they were such as to change the character of the whole of the property on that frontier, from a pacific to a belligerant character. The House ought to bear in mind always, that our military operations on that frontier were of an offensive character, because he thought that consideration placed these claims on ground to make the argument in their favor conclusive. Our troops were not carried there to protect the frontier from invasion by the enemy. That was not the purpose, nor the object of the collection of the troops there. If the Government had not, for its own purposes-wise ones, no doubt-chosen to make that border the theatre of war, there was no human probability that there would have arisen there any of the consequences which did actually occur. Of one fact in regard to this matter, there could be no doubt, namely, that the Government was, as a Government, totally destitute of any public property on that frontier. They had neither barracks, nor hospitals, nor arsenals, nor warehouses for the deposite of public property. Yet the Government chose to carry on offensive war from that frontier, by a continued series of invasions of the territory of the enemy. For all the purposes of hospitals, barracks to shelter the soldiers at all seasons of the year, depositories of public stores, &c. they had to rely on the buildings of the inhabitants, which they made free and general use of. When these things were considered, Mr. T. said, that it would be discovered that the notoriety of this fact must have established, in the mind of the enemy, a positive conviction, that the offensive movements on the part of our troops, were entirely dependent on the use of individual property, and that measures of defence against this warfare must include the destruction of that property. It was thus that the property on that frontier ac

In this view of the subject, a character was given to the property thus occupied for offensive purposes, different from that which it would have borne, if occupied for defensive purposes only. If, for example, said Mr. and we, for the defence of the city, had taken possesT. the enemy had come to invade the city of New York, sion of private buildings, I should say that the right of the enemy to destroy those buildings would be very different from that which he held in regard to those buildings on the Niagara frontier, which our troops occupied for offensive purposes.

M. T. here recurred to some of the testimony taken in regard to these claims, to shew that the facts existed in a degree even stronger than he had stated-exhibiting a state of things to justify the destruction of property on the Niagara frontier not only for general causes, but for the particular cause of the justifiable presumption that the property occupied as barracks, &c. was the property of the United States, and the certainty that the property within those buildings, at least, was the property of the Government. Mr. T. here read extracts from the testimony of Gen. Porter, whose public reputation and standing in the country gave weight to whatever he said, to shew, that, so general was the occupation of private buildings by the authority of the United States, that he could not, upon reflection, recollect a single building on that frontier, fit for barracks, hospital, quarters, &c. which had not, at one period or other of the war, been principally or exclusively occupied for one or other of those purposes. There were many other witnesses to the same purpose, whom it would be impossible to discredit. Mr. T. particularly dwelt upon the fact disclosed by the testimony, that the people of Buffalo, through their committee of safety, had remonstrated with Gen. McClure in December, 1813, against his quartering troops in that village, expressly stating that, if he did so, they had reason to apprehend the destruction of their property as the consequence; to which General Mc lure said, in reply, that he would pledge his honor that indemnity would be paid by the Government for any losses which might be sustained, &c. Mr. T. did not mean to attempt to sustain these claims on the ground of Gen. McClure's promise, but he quoted the fact to show conclusively, and to carry conviction to every mind, that there did exist a state of things there which left no doubt, either on the minds of the people or of our military commanders, that military occupation of the private property would, in all probability, subject it to destruction. Gen. McClure, whilst making the reply which any honorable man or patriot would do on such an occasion, insisted on taking possession of the buildings, which were, indeed, indispensable to the shelter of the force under his command. Not long after this, the enemy came. Mr. T. stated the circumstances of their coming, and the manner and time of their destroying the property. With regard to the motives of the enemy, gentlemen might

DEC. 29, 30, 1824.]

Niagara Sufferers-Columbian College.

[H. of R. & Sen.

gations of Government were very different from what
gentlemen had supposed them to be in such cases.
Mr. T. closed by observing that, in relation to the
motion to strike out the first section, he hoped, if gen-
tlemen were determined nothing should be done for
these claimants, that they would vote for the motion,
and put them out of their pain. In regard to this bill,
though he felt the common affection of paternity for it,
he was not tenacious of its particular features: he was
willing it should be amended, if desired. His constitu-
ents, these claimants, had been tantalized so long with
hope and expectation of relief, that he hoped a final de-
cision would now be pronounced on the case. If, in
defiance of justice, reason, and equity, gentlemen were
disposed to refuse the claimants any indemnity whatever
for their losses, Mr. T. hoped they would vote for the
pending motion, and at once put an end to the bill.

ascribe to them the most savage, atrocious, and diaboli-gether erroneous: but, if otherwise, even then the oblical; but, in his view of the matter, charity, even to an enemy, required that, where a justifiable motive was to be found for his acts, we should refer them to that rather than to one that was merely malignant. The mass of testimony from our own officers, proved that the destruction of this property was caused by its military occupation. Independent of this strong concurrent testimony, there was a body of evidence of British officers to the same effect. Many of these individuals, Mr. T. said he knew, because he resided in the vicinity of their country, and he knew that they were men of as high honor, virtue and integrity, as were any where, British or American, to be found. Mr. T. pursued the history of this disastrous season, with all its circumstances, to shew that the invasion of the Niagara frontier was purely a military operation, &c. The occupation for military purposes, was, indeed, almost universal. Several of the buildings were destroyed by the explosion of the powder and ammunition deposited in them, &c. The depositions on this subject, taken together, formed a complete chain of testimony, establishing what were the motives and object, &c. of the destruction of this property.

If the language of the act of 1816 had required, to entitle the losers to indemnity, that their property should have been so occupied, as, upon the principles of civilized warfare, to justify their destruction, the case would have been fully made out by the testimony. But, Mr. T. said, the laws on this subject do not demand that the occupation should be such, to authorize a claim for indemnity, and it is obvious that they should not demand it. In passing the law of 1816, Congress did not mean that the destruction of property should be justifiable: for it is sufficient to constitute an absolute obligation to indemnify the loser, that there was an occupation of his property by the Government, and that the destruction of his property was the consequence of that occupation. Such was the law of 1816, establishing the same rule between the Government and individuals, as would be the law on the principles of common justice, between one individual and another individual.

On motion of Mr. VANCE, of Ohio, the committee then rose, and obtained leave to sit again.

IN SENATE-THURSDAY, DECEMBER 30, 1824. The resolution was received from the House of Representatives proposing a joint committee to wait on General Lafayette, and announce to him the passage of the act in his favor, and requesting his acceptance of the provision therein made for him.

SMITH, HAYNE, and BOULIGNY, were appointed by The resolution was agreed to nem. con, and Messrs. the chair the committee on the part of the Senate.

The bill for the relief of the Columbian College in the District of Columbia, being under consideration:

the Senate, a general view was taken of the necessity of Mr. BARBOUR said, in a report made last session in a College within the District of Columbia, and it was then stated that it had been a very favorite object with the most distinguished citizens of America, amongst whom, Presidents Washington and Madison had often pressed on the attention of Congress the necessity of such an institution. From causes not necessary to be enumerated here, this advice was not acted upon by As regards this last point, Mr. T. said, the law has Congress, and, after the expiration of many years, some not required, reason does not require, that the conduct free spirited and enterprising citizens, amongst whom of the enemy should be justifiable, to sustain a claim for Luther Rice stood pre-eminent, determined to do that indemnity. Neither have the decisions of this House which had been represented to Congress as well worthy required it. Mr. T. referred to the case of the Hen- of national patronage; and they succeeded, so far as to derson claim, for property destroyed by the enemy lay the foundation of the institution in question. A colon some part of the maritime coast of Virginia, in which lege was erected, but not on a scale in any way corresit was not established, nor was there any color of evi-ponding to the public expectation on the subject, bedence to prove, that the destruction of the property was justifiable by the usages of civilized war: and yet, Mr. T. said, if he was not very much mistaken, the gentleman from Virginia had himself voted in favor of that claim. The gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. Williams) who, to do him justice, was consistent in his opposition to all this class of claims, had declared in the debate on that claim, that the case was not at all stronger than that of the Niagara claims. His declaration was not neces-Jection would have been an insuperable one, and I for sary to prove this: for if any one would look at the facts of the two cases, he would see, that whatever difference there was between them was in favor of the claimants on the Niagara frontier, in this view, that the military occupation in the Virginia case was defensive-that in the Niagara cases was offensive. Although, Mr. T. said, he had voted for that claim, believing it a just one, it was in no degree of comparison as strong as the case of the Niagara sufferers.

He had not said all he wished, but he would no longer detain the committee but to say, that, under views which might be presented by others, he might have occasion to trouble the House again on the point, made by the opponents of these claims, that the devastation of the frontier was a retaliatory act. The views which had been expressed on this point, Mr. T. said, were alto

cause the only aid that has ever been granted by Con-
gress to this institution was a cold and reluctant consent
to its existence. The only solution that was to be found
to this unkind disposition, was the misapprehension that
had gone abroad, that it was to be a sectarian establish-
ment, and as such not entitled to the favor and consider-
ation of Congress. If this had been the case, and this
establishment had been of an exclusive nature, the ob-

one, said Mr. B. should have voted against it. My creed,
with reference to this subject, is, that it does not belong
to the constitution to dispense, in the slightest degree,
favor to one sect, to the exclusion of others. Religion
should be, as it is, placed beyond the control of govern-
ment, and free as air. But, in this case, the fact has been
misrepresented; the suspicion is entirely unfounded,
and a reference to the history of the Institution will
prove that it is not true.
lishment: youths from all parts of the Union are zealous-
It is purely a literary estab-
ly invited, whatever may be their religion, and the at-
tention of the superiors is directed to their intellectual
improvement. I mention this fact again, because I
know that, from the day of its foundation, it has been
viewed through the jaundiced eye, of suspicion, from
which it has suffered much. Whatever may be the fate

Senate.]

Columbian College.

[Dec. 30, 1824.

of the present measure, it is due to the character of the should put your hands into your Treasury. Not that Institution to state, that it may be universally known you shall do to them as you have done to others, namethat this imputation was hastily thrown out, and is entirely, to appropriate a portion of the public lots for the bely without foundation-the general improvement of the nefit of education; but simply to release a debt which mind is its object, and it is not bound to the exclusive they are unable to pay. Even in the case of individuals, support of any system of religion whatever. where a man, by misfortune, is unable to pay his debts, is it unreasonable for him to ask of his wealthy creditor to surrender a debt which he cannot discharge, whose only effect is to keep in his hands a rod with which to chastise, unavailable to the creditor, but disastrous to the debtor, repressing every motive to exertion, from the hopeless conviction that every exertion is in vain! And this is all that is now asked by the Columbian College--a feeble institution, full of promise, if its succeeds

in the little boon now asked.

You may retain this pleasure, if you call it a pleasure, of holding this rod over this institution without benefit to yourselves, but ruin to it. Look to the origin of this institution, and you will observe that it has progressed in a most extraordinary manner. Your agency towards it has been cold and reluctant; you were contented with allowing it to exist; you are the only legislative body to which application can be made on this subject. All the states of the Union have shown a lively interest in the encouragement of such institutions; and yet an institution in this particular district, which has been placed under the peculiar care of Congress, is suffered to struggle with difficulties that must overwhelm it without your aid. Your treatment towards it has been rather that of a harsh unfeeling stepmother, than that of a kind and affectionate parent, and now that it has grown up to such an extent as to contain more than one hundred students, and asks of you only to relinquish that claim which is useless to yourselves, and yet presses so hard on it, will you refuse? Look at its progress: What was expectation and speculation last year, has now become reality. There is no institution, considering the time it has been endowed, and the number of pupils, that has presented more distinguished specimens of literary improvement than this college has done. The language of the report on its actual results is consoling.

By the spirit and enterprize of almost one individual, continued Mr. B., funds were raised, and 50,000 dollars invested for purchasing a favorable site, and for the erection of buildings for the reception and accommodation of 100 students. In the pursuit of this object, 80,000 dollars were expended, consequently they exceeded the amount of their funds by $30,000; this claim still exists against the Institution, and the payment of the interest is a heavy tax on their slender means. So far as this is concerned, however, they do not propose to ask for any aid from Congress, and you will see by the report, as well as by the bill, that the aid now petitioned for has no connection with this sum. Last ses sion, it was proposed to extend some relief to the College; it was desirable that the Institution should prosper; it was one of national concern, and was of sufficient extent to educate 100 of the American youth. The grant proposed was opposed, on the ground, that the means of the inhabitants within the District were amply sufficient for the end in view, and that Congress had no right to appropriate public money for a local object. This objection was removed, in the opinion of the committee, by the proposition to appropriate a few of the lots belonging to the United States, acquired by the cession of the territory And, as the United States had given one thirty-sixth part of the public domain, in each of the new States, for the purposes of education, the committee could not perceive why pursuing the same measure of aid here should be objected to. But, instead of asking that proportion, they had recommended only a very small appropriation. For, according to a report presented to Congress, the value of the lots had been estimated at $2,000,000. And they were the more confirmed in the view they had taken, as this fund had been pointed out by Mr. Madison, as one free from every constitutional scruple-and higher authority on constitu- These, said Mr. B. are the views which presented tional doctrine, would hardly be required by the Senate. themselves to the Committee, and are thus freely reThey therefore had presented to the consideration of presented to the Senate. I rejoice to see literary estaCongress a plan free from difficulty, by which the insti- blishments springing up every where. Permit me to tution might have been benefited, and they had a hope, offer a general remark: Look into the annals of manbordering on confidence, that the Senate would have kind; every page of history presents the shocking and had no difficulty in responding to their views on this disgusting view of man preying on his fellow man---of subject, by granting the required aid-the amount was millions expended in desolating the earth and destroylimited, and they hoped, that, after this relief, the insti- ing the human species; but when we seek for acts of tution would have prospered. The Senate, however, beneficence done by Governments for promoting the had differed in opinion from the committee; and thus welfare and happiness of the people, we look in vain; differing, the committee had yielded; and the only factor if by chance we do discover a solitary instance, aristo be noticed, is, that the College has hitherto received ing from motives of pure benevolence, it is like the verdno favor from Congress but the privilege of existing.ant spot which strikes and refreshes the eye of the weaThe expectation of all pecuniary aid is surrendered-ry traveller in the midst of the burning and sandy dethey ask only, that the government will give up the sert, and is the more cheering and delightful from the claim which they have on it, whose origin is disclosed contrast with the desolation which reigns around. in the report. They have nothing to answer this claim but two houses, for which the debt was contracted, on Greenleaf's Point; and any Gentleman who has visited that spot will easily comprehend that it is not very available property: It is surrounded with desolation; and though true that some of the houses have survived, yet, in the course of time, without some great change, this property must come to nothing. The fact is,the College have never received the least, or, if any, an inconsiderable advantage from this property; they became responsible merely in consequence of these two houses, which they believed they could render available. What their motives might have been in acquiring this property, I cannot say. I merely speak to the fact, that the institution has not received any benefit from this transaction.

And what, said Mr. B. do they ask? Not that you

If we appeal to the annals of our own country, said Mr. B. we shall find that we are by no means entirely free from these charges. The free institutions we lay claim to, and superior intelligence we boast, in their practical effects, seem to furnish the ordinary materials for history. Millions have been appropriated here, as elsewhere, for warlike purposes. But where are your acts of beneficence? I fear but few. I therefore, said Mr. B. present this case to the favorable consideration of the Senate, with the flattering hope that they will take this opportunity of adding one item to the very few that are now on record, where Governments have acted benevolently for the benefit of mankind.

Mr. CHANDLER observed, that, if this institution was a national one, then they were bound to foster it; but, if it was not, they saw no reason why they should afford it any support, beyond what they afforded to all

« 上一頁繼續 »