tion admitting of an amicable and honorable settlement of the question, confidently trusting, that the Government of the Union, in some of its departments, at least, would secure her from sacrifice. For this step, she has no cause of self reproach. It was taken under circumstances that would fully justify its repetition. How this gencrosity and confidence on her part has been rewarded, is seen in the result! But I forbear to dilate upon the subject, especially as it would be unavailing. If in this, Maine has not been treated as she has endeavored to deserve," it is far from being the first instance. All her injuries, however, cannot shake her sense of duty. As a member of the Union, she will continue to be, what she has ever been, faithful and true. And if she could be satisfied that the sacrifice was necessary for the good of the Country, she could in that find ample consolation. To insolent and unfounded pretension, she can yield nothing; to the cause of patriotism and the Union, everything.

I have received from the Governor of the State of Connecticut, certain resolutions adopted by the Legislature of that State relative to the tariff, the bankrupt law, the act for the distribution of the proceeds of the public lands, and to West Point Academy, which are herewith laid before you.

The tariff, as a source of revenue, but especially by the important benefits it is made to confer upon individuals and classes, has ever been a subject of deep and absorbing interest, often strongly agitating the whole Country, and, once at least, by the extreme length to which it was pushed by private interest, threatening a

rupture of our glorious Union. That the time is near when political aspirants will cease to endeavor, by means of it, to acquire popular favor and obtain power, we have no reason to expect. But we may hope, that arguments addressing themselves to interests purely selfish, will not always, or indeed, generally, predominate over the impulses of patriotism.

It is not against a tariff, however, but its abuses only, that I speak. This mode of raising a revenue for the support of the government, seems now to be almost universally regarded as the most convenient and expedient, notwithstanding the impossibility, under any adjustment of a tariff, of attaining perfect equality in the burdens imposed, for the duty being paid by consumers of taxed articles, the amount of the tax must of course be, to a considerable extent, irrespective of property. But, the general favor with which this mode of taxation is regarded, does not extend to its abuses. If, in addition to the inherent and unavoidable inequalities of the system, it be made to confer special favors upon one section of the country, or upon particular classes of citizens, to the detriment of other sections and other classes, it becomes anti-republican and oppressive-and, violating the plainest principles of natural justice, it is not strange that it should become odious. The favors of government should be dispensed, not only with a liberal, but an impartial, hand.

I would not, however, be understood as opposing all discrimination in selecting articles for taxation. The legitimate purpose of a tariff should be revenue,-but in its adjustment, those articles may be favorably regarded

that are classed with the necessaries of life, and enter largely into the daily consumption of the poor. A reasonable protection to the industrial classes of the country, also, under a judicious arrangement of the tariff, could hardly fail to be secured-but it would be incidental, merely, to the main design, and would not, therefore, conflict with the views already expressed.

The tariff adopted at the last session of Congress, however, is regarded as inconsistent with these principles and views. It proposes to raise a much larger sum than an economical administration of the government requires, and is unequal and unjust in its operations. The public voice clearly calls for an essential modifica

tion of it.

Whatever opinions may be entertained as to the constitutionality of some of the provisions of the Bankrupt Act, but few, it is believed, will question that "it is unjust in its operations, and subversive of moral obligations —that it tends to encourage fraud, to destroy confidence between man and man, and to aggravate the embarrassments of the country." Its repeal, so far as I have become acquainted with public sentiment in this State, would be regarded with general, not to say universal, approbation.

Disclaiming all right to interfere with matters of local interest merely, in any of our sister States, cases may nevertheless occur, in which their proceedings would involve consequences of such general concernment, as to justify, if not require, an expression of opinion, at least, by the governments and citizens of other States. Such,

I think, is the case presented in the contest now going on in Rhode Island. Our Republic is a confederation of States. Together, they fought the great battle of freedom-together, established their independence-and, upon common principles, instituted their respective governments. These principles assert the natural freedom and equality of man, and the perfect right of self governCan these principles be subverted and trampled under foot, and that too by military force, in one part of the Republic, and all other parts of it remain unaffected and indifferent? On the contrary, I hold that in the maintenance of these principles, there is an identity of interests-that, the vindication of them, is a common duty.

Under the exercise of their right "to establish or change their form of government at pleasure," the people of Rhode Island substituted a written constitution for the Charter of a British King. Under the latter, the inestimable right of suffrage was limited to a small minority; who, under the forms of law, deprived the majority of many valuable rights and privileges incident to a free government. These rights and privileges, the Constitution restored. But the Constitution thus formed, has been set aside, and the government put in operation under it, resisted and overborne by military force. It is true, that all this has not been done, without a pretence of right. The validity of the Constitution is denied, because the first movement of the people towards its formation was spontaneous, and did not originate in an act of the Legislature. But it is not easy to perceive how the Legislature possess such exclusive power. If

they have it, whence is it derived? The people have never conferred it upon them-nor did even the Charter of Charles 2d contain any provision respecting it. Can the servants of the people, with limited powers, do, what the people themselves, with unlimited powers, cannot do? To my mind the proposition involves a great absurdity.

But I refrain from attempting an elaborate view of the subject. My desire simply has been to call your attention to it, by presenting a few of its most obvious features. Should the occasion present, in your estimation, a favorable opportunity to contribute something, by way of resolutions or otherwise, to advance the great cause of human rights, and to sustain the principles which lie at the foundation of our republican freedom, you will judge whether it is not incumbent on you so to do.

As this will be the last annual communication I shall have the honor to make to the Legislature of this State, I avail myself of the occasion to express my deep sense of obligation and of gratitude to my fellow citizens, for their distinguished favor and confidence, as evinced in repeated elections and otherwise :-and, for the generosity and kindness, with which they have ever regarded the errors, which I am but too sensible of having committed. Nor can I omit to allude to the kindness and courtesy with which I have been treated by those with whom I have been associated in the administration of the government. These recollections, together with a consciousness of having faithfully endeavored, however great or numerous have been my failures, to discharge my official duties with a single aim to the good of the