網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

JAN. 11, 1833.]

Florida Claims.

[H. OF R.

General Jackson would never have crossed the line in injured, and against whom, so far from having a cause of pursuit of the Seminoles, had he not well known that aggression, she became ashamed of the acts of her offi they were encouraged to commit the outrages of which cer, and disavowed and dismissed him? Enough, sir: I they had been guilty. Yet, for some slight damage done am ashamed to be guilty of what I fear is almost tautology; by our armies to the people of West Florida in 1818, am- but this is a subject so important to the very subsistance ple redress is guaranteed, and satisfaction had been made; of a large portion of my constituents, that I deem it my whilst the harmless and unoffending citizen of East Flo- duty to present it to the committee in every possible asrida, against whom no complaint was ever alleged, in the pect that it will bear, even at the hazard of repetition. moment of profound peace, is driven by the invading ar- Sir, so novel and ruinous to a number of citizens is the mies of the United States from his home, and, on his re- present construction of the treaty, the present definitions turn, finds himself a beggar, his houses burnt, his crops of the word "late," that I thought it best to attempt to and groves, the labor of a life, destroyed; his stock and show, that in every possible bearing of the subject, the his slaves stolen away, or driven into the woods; and, construction was wrong, the definition erroneous, and when he asks redress at the hands of the wrong doer, he the consequences monstrous. If, in presenting this subis told "that he is too late," that he is barred by a con-ject in so many points of view, I have been compelled to structive act of limitations, and that the wrongs of which use twice the same ideas, or the same expression, I plead he complains, are not late enough to be remedied. When my apology in the nature of the question, and the novelty he answers that they are not only late, but the very last, of the controversy. in East Florida, of which he is a citizen, he is a again told We are further told, sir, that "in the construction of a that the word "operations" is limited to 1818, and means doubtful treaty, we are to have recourse to conjectures, nothing if applied to any other year. But, sir, let us which are to be found in the subject-matter, and in the grant the construction contended for, in its fullest extent, consequences, and the circumstances and connexions." that the word "late" is in the Spanish copy as well as in The subject-matter is redress of wrongs done to the prithe English; let us grant the grammar of the Government vate property of Spanish subjects in Florida by the Ameto be good, that their definition of the word is correct; in rican army. The object of Spain was to vindicate her a word, let us admit that the word "late," when applied sullied honor, and to secure indemnity to her injured subto operations, does not mean the very latest, or last thing, jects; and what are the consequences of this construction done; and then let us go to the sages of national law to con- of the treaty? Spain was not interested in securing a full strue the meaning of the text. "Where we have no satisfaction to the people of Florida; they were her subother conjecture to guide us," says Grotius, B. 2, C. 16, jects no longer, and it was to the mother country a matter "words are not to be construed in their original or gram- of pecuniary indifference, whether they remained citizens matical sense, but in their common acceptation: for it is of the United States, the beggars we had made them, or the arbitrary rules of custom which direct the laws and not. But the honor of Spain was pledged to see them rules of speech." Now, if the grammar of the restric- redressed: and is this effected by the course we pursue? tionist be correct-if, in the definition of the word, they Are these the consequences naturally desired by both are strictly right--Í appeal to every man of common parties? And when the honor of Spain, if these are the sense, if the "common acceptation" of the word "late," consequences of this treaty, is still sullied, what becomes as fixed by the "arbitrary custom," be not, as I have de- of our own? To redress by treaty those wrongs which fined it, something recent and of short date, something Congress solemnly resolved that General Jackson was done not long since? right in doing, and to leave those unredressed that Aury

"In all human affairs, where absolute certainty is not or McGregor would blush at. Again, sir, we learn from at hand to point out the way, we must take probability Blackstone, Intro. to Com. c. ii. p. 16, that "the most for our guide." "In most cases it is extremely proba- universal and effectual mode of discovering the true meanble, that the parties have expressed themselves according ing of a law, when the words are dubious, is, by considerto established usage, and such probability ever affords a ing the reason or spirit of it, or the cause which moved strong presumption, which cannot be overruled but by a the legislator to enact it."

still stronger presumption." (Vat. 2, 17, 271.) I need not As we progress, sir, the authorities in favor of a liberal here stop to inquire if it is the established usage of lan- construction of this treaty are multiplied upon us. "If guage to confound the positive with the superlative? Let the promiser has neglected to examine the matter, or has us for for a moment test the construction of a treaty by been careless in expressing his meaning, he will be bound these presumptions and probabilties. Now, is it probable, to repair the damage which another has sustained on that is it to be "presumed," that Spain would pertinaciously account." (Grotius.) We are the promiser. Spain expectadhere to the interests of those of her subjects, against ed, and stipulated for full satisfaction to her injured subwhom we had a good cause of aggression, and abandon to jects. It is amply provided for in the Spanish copy of the their fate a larger portion of claimants, who had never of treaty. Those subjects have relied on our promise, and fended? Did she consider her honor bound by geographi- have sustained a heavy damage by that reliance: for we cal limits, and did she feel solicitous to wipe from her may freely conclude, that as this is the single stipulation escutcheon only that part of the stain which had attached in favor of Spain, without this, in its fullest comprehension, on the west of the Suwannee? Again, is it probable that she would never have ceded the Floridas. This rule is the United States would make this distinction under the again and again pressed on us by the books. We are furexisting circumstances of the case? Are these the proba-ther told by Grotius, 2, 16, 7, that "no inconsiderable bilities and presumptions required by the law of nations? light may be thrown on the meaning of an expression, from It is extremely probable that the parties have expressed the circumstances of its being used by the same persons, themselves conformably to established usage. to express the same intentions, on other similar occasions,

Is it established usage for a nation, in making a treaty and from its relation to what goes before, and what folwith another, to secure indemnity to one-half of her citi- lows, the place where it stands." "We must consider zens or subjects, and leave the other half, more innocent the whole discourse together, in order perfectly to conand more suffering, to irremediable ruin? Is it established ceive the sense of it, and give to each expression not so usage for a nation to stipulate redress to one-half of the much the signification which it may individually admit of, subjects of another, for wrongs done by herself, after the as that which it ought to have, from the context and spirit great national council had solemnly resolved, that, against of the discourse." (Vat. 2, 17, 285.) Now, sir, it will be that portion, so redressed, we had just cause of war, and seen by reference to the treaty itself, and to the negotiarefuse it to the otherhalf, whom she had more grievously Itions which preceded it, that the object which both par

H. OF R.]

Florida Claims.

[JAN. 11, 1833

ties had in view, was a full and final settlement of all de- previous to the year 1819; the satisfaction is construed to mands and differences, mutually claimed and existing (up extend to acts of the preceding year alone. "Recent" to that day) between them. Spain had injured our com- means whatever is done before that time, without any merce herself, and to a greater extent had suffered it to limitation whatsoever; "late" means nothing more than be injured in her very ports by French privateers. Our what was done one year before it; and this is the unvessels, thus seized, were subsequently condemned as bounded odds of the word recent in one sentence, and the prizes by the Spanish Court of Admiralty. All this was word late in the other. This is the odds in the meaning previous to 1802. In addition to this, we claimed satis of two synonymous words, when one is meant as a secu faction for the suspension of our right of deposite at New rity to us, and the other as an obligation upon us. It is Orleans in that year. In a word, every item in the ac- true, what we are told by the books, "that favorable count of the United States against Spain, was previous in promises are those which contain an equality of terms, or its date to 1803. To this account, Spain produces her off-which bear some relation to the common good; the mag set, and the items of that offset are specified in the final nitude and extent of which increases the favor of the pr renunciation she makes at the conclusion of the settle- mise." (Grotius.) "Remedial statutes, says Christian, ment of what she had claimed.

Notes to Blackstone, Introduction, page 87, “must be construed according to the spirit; for, in giving rel against fraud, or in furtherance and extension of natural right and justice, the judge may safely go even beyard that which existed in the minds of those who framed it.” "In a case of doubt we should, in preference, pursue that line of conduct by which we are least exposed to deviate from the principles of equity." (Vattel, B. 2, C. 17, Sec. 306)

Finally, the renunciation extends "to all the claims of his Catholic Majesty upon the Government of the United States, in which the interposition of his Catholic Majesty's Government has been solicited before the date of this treaty, and since the date of 1802, or which may have been made," &c. Here Spain renounces that for which she had claim ed satisfaction, to wit: all acts done by the United States to her subjects subsequent to 1802, and previous to the date of the treaty, as well for the operations of our armies Now, sir, I think I have shown that the construction for in 1812 and 1814, as for the year 1818. And for what which I contend is, "in furtherance and extension of m consideration is this renunciation made? For the satisfac- tural right and justice;" and I do solemnly believe that I tion promised by the United States in the clause which could show that it was "giving relief against fraud;” but follows. The debt from Spain to the United States was I forbear. due in 1802. The last item in the account was of that I come now to the great rule of interpretation--the date, and in a settlement in full in 1819, we are told that tention of the parties to the deed. If this cannot be in offsets of 1812 and '14 are too old to be allowed. "And ferred from the object they had in view, nor from the the high contracting parties respectively renounce all principles of universal justice, nor "from the same or claim to indemnities for any of the recent events or trans- a synonymous word used in another place," as required actions of their respective commanders and officers in the by Grotius, let us see if we cannot dive into the secrets Floridas." Here it is evident that the word "recent," in of the negotiation, and find there some friendly clue to this sentence, was used as synonymous with the word "late" guide us through the labyrinth. in the next; and it is on this synonyme of these two adjec- It has been my good fortune to discover, sir, in the ar tives, that the Committee of Foreign Affairs have based chives of the Department of State, a copy of the original their opinion. Let us apply this rule of construction as protocol of conference between Mr. Adams, the Secre well to the Spaniards as to ourselves. Suppose Spain were tary of State, and Don Louis de Onis, the ambassador from now to demand satisfaction at our hands for the invasion Spain. By reference to this, the last section but one in of her territory in 1812 and '14, by Matthews and Mitchell, the ninth article, will be found the same as that subseby Bankhouse and Bankhead. Suppose she were to say quently transcribed in the treaty: "And the high con to us, that it is true she had "renounced all claim to in-tracting parties respectively renounce all claims to indem demnity for any of the recent events or transactions, &c. nities for any of the recent events or transactions of their in the Floridas," but that renunciation is co-extensive with respective commanders and officers in the Floridas." This, the satisfaction we make to her subjects; and as that sa- it must be remembered, is the project of a treaty furnished tisfaction is confined to the "operations" of 1818, in West by Mr. Adams. Mr. Onis then proceeds thus: "To the Florida, so is the renunciation. Suppose she reply to us above claim, Mr. de Onis adds, that the United States further, in our own language, that "recent" and "late" will satisfy all the just claims which the inhabitants and are the same, that "late" means the last "operations:" Spanish officers of the Floridas may have upon them in when we say to her that the operations of Backhouse and consequence of the damages they may have sustained by Bankhead, in 1814, were the very last in East Florida, she the operations and proceedings of the American army, as is ready to refute the doctrine by a quotation of our words, is customary with the citizens of the United States under "they apply only to 1818," we have renounced for that similar circumstances." To this requisition of Don de year alone; we have renounced to the same extent that Onis, Mr. Adams replies by the emphatic word "agreed." you have paid us, and we now claim the balance. Can This, then, contains the meaning and intention of the any thing be more just and equitable, and, at the same parties. This is the plain and unsophisticated purpo time, more ridiculous, than this would be? And yet this which each meant to express when this sentence was re interpretation, so ridiculous in the mouth of Spain, the duced into form, as it now stands in the last section of the United States have adopted as the rule by which they will

be governed.

ninth article of the treaty. Let us then examine it, and see if it can, by any possibility--by any latitude of con The United States will cause satisfaction to be made struction--support the meaning that has been given to for the injuries, if any, which, by due course of law, shall be established to have been suffered by the Spanish of the object of the parties, stripped as it is of all diplomat The first thing that strikes us in this rough draught of ficers, and individual Spanish inhabitants, by the late ope- form, and left naked and undisguised to the commonest apprehension, is this, that the word "late," so fatal to Thus stands the interpretation of these two sections of the just claims of honest sufferers, is not to be found. the ninth article of the treaty with Spain. Spain renounces all claim to indemnity for injuries done to her trine of exclusion, or of classification, the word all is the The next is, that, so far from its warranting the dec citizens for "recent transactions." We promise to make phatically used: "The United States will satisfy all the satisfaction for all injuries done by late operations;" just claims," &c To which Mr. Adams has "agreed."

rations of the American army in Florida."

the renunciation is construed to embrace every act done Now, sir, can a purpose be plainer,

or a promise be

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

stronger? Here there cannot, even "by implication," be left "a hook to hang a doubt on." Here is a posi tive promise, by Mr. Adams, to satisfy "all the just claims of the inhabitants of the Floridas." Surely those of the East are as just as those of the West. I well know that, by the fashionable logic of the day, the word all would be limited to West Florida, but for the plural that embraces both the Floridas."

"As is customary with the citizens of the United States in similar cases." That it is customary for the United States to do justice when she has done wrong, I trust that no man in this nation will be bardy enough to deny: that it is customary in cases like this, is evinced by the ready satisfaction they caused to be made to the citizens of West Florida, and by their constant protection of the followers of Matthews in East Florida; by sending an agent to Frenchtown, during our late war with Great Britain, to adjust all claims, and pay for the losses occasioned there to private individuals by the operations of our armies; and by the alacrity displayed to inflict punishment on Commodore Porter, for his recent attack on Foxardo. I know not if satisfaction has been made to Spain, and to "individual Spanish officers and inhabitants," for that affair; but I am well assured that, when demanded, it will not be denied.

SATURDAY, JANUARY 12.
MATTHEW LYON'S FINE.

[H. OF R

The bill to refund to the legal representatives of Matthew Lyon, deceased, a sum of money ($1,060 96) paid by him as a fine under the sedition law, with interest from 1799, having been yesterday reported from the Committee of the Whole, and ordered to a third reading, and the question being now on its passage

Mr. MASON, of Virginia, demanded the yeas and nays; which were ordered.

Mr. TAYLOR moved to lay the bill upon the table, and demanded the yeas and nays on that motion; and they were ordered by the House, and being taken, stood as follows: Yeas 57, nays 91.

So the House refused to lay the bill upon the table. [Mr. LYON, of Kentucky, was, on his own request, excused from voting.]

A very animated debate now arose, which occupied the House until past three o'clock, and was then suspended by the adjournment.

Mr. DRAYTON referred to the report accompanying the bill, in which it is expressly put upon the ground that the fine to be remitted by this bill was imposed under a law that was unconstitutional, null and void, having been But, above all, it is "customary with citizens of the passed under a mistaken view of the powers delegated to United States" to make loud and reiterated demands for Congress, and that, therefore, that it ought to be refunded, all injuries done by a foreign power to themselves. Wit- with interest. This being the avowed principle on which ness those against Spain, now settled by the treaty of ces- the bill was introduced into the House, to pass the bill sion; against France, for spoliations on our commerce, as would be to declare, by an act of that House, that the yet unadjusted, but the justice of which, we are told, has Supreme Court of the United States had given an unconnever been controverted; and, lastly, the claims on Great stitutional decision, which the Legislature set aside with Britain, for the destruction of property during the late the same power as if they had possessed and exercised war, just decided in our favor by an imperial tribunal. appellate jurisdiction in the case. He begged gentlemen Here, sir, are cases embracing spoliations of every cha- to reflect on this before they voted for the bill. It was racter: Against Spain, for suspending the right of depo- the great excellence of our constitution that it kept the site at New Orleans, though, as in the case of Matthews, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Departments of the it was disavowed by the Government; for suffering French Governments separate and distinct from one another. Of privateers to capture our shipping in her ports, and con- these, the Legislative, being the paramount branch, and demning the prizes in her courts of admiralty, when her possessing most power, was very properly the most independence was annihilated, and her power prostrate guarded and fettered by cautionary provisions. But the at the foot of France. Against France, for spoliations Representatives of the people were liable to confound committed by privateers, whose acts were disavowed by themselves with the people whom they represented; and, the then Government, and yet must be redressed by this. because the people possessed unlimited power, to supAgainst Great Britain, for acts done flagrante bello in the pose that they possessed the same. But this was far from operations of an invading army. And is it possible there being the case. And he asked under what grant of power can be a case not embraced in the examples cited? Were from the people, express or implied, they derived the the acts, of which we complain in East Florida, committed power to revise and reverse a decision of the judicial in time of peace? So was the suspension of the deposite branch of the Government? If this principle was to be at New Orleans. Were they unavoidable by our Gov- carried out, the Legislature would be the sole judge of ernment? So was the capture of a vessel by French the constitutionality of its own laws, and its powers and cruisers, unavoidable by Spain. Yet they are all paid action would be without limit or control. He was not unaware that, in some of the States, the Legislature exerI had intended, in the division of this subject, to say cised a power somewhat analogous to that now to be assomething on the fourth head, to wit: that, if every other sumed; but it never did this in its legislative capacity, but view of the subject, under which these people presented when sitting as a judicial body. The antiquity of the themselves to the consideration of the committee, should case made no difference in its principle: if the principle fail them, that even then they would be entitled to indem- should be once established, so soon as an individual connity for the injuries they have sustained, as considered sidered himself as aggrieved by any decision of the court, now, de novo. But, sir, I fear that I have already wearied all he had to do was to throw a memorial into that House, the attention of the committee. I shall, for this reason, rely on the ground already taken, and leave the claims of my much injured constituents to the committee and to the House, confiding, as I do, with hope and confidence, on the justice of my country to do right to those to whom they have done not only wrong, but ruin.

for.

After some remarks from Mr. EVERETT, of Massachusetts, and Mr. ARCHER, the question was taken, and the motion to strike out the enacting clause prevailed: Yeas 66, nays 51.

The committee then rose, and reported; and
The House adjourned.

VOL. IX.--64

(and both bodies often sat simultaneously,) and get the decision, as to its effects, at once set aside. Thus the country would be left under a Government of unlimited powers. He appealed to the House, whether they would thus confound all the departments of Government together, and overturn those institutions under which our liberty had been preserved to us. Should a bill pass involving such principles, and, on the avowed grounds of those principles, one of the most fatal stabs would be inflicted on the constitution which it had ever received; the nature of our Government would be completely changed; it would be vain any longer to talk of limiting its powers; but its pillars would be at once and forever prostrated.

H. OF R.]

Matthew Lyon's Fine.

(JAN. 12, 1803,

Mr. DEARBORN said, that whatever his opinion might mited powers which, as possessed by the National Assembe as to the sedition law, and whatever his opinion might, bly, had deluged France in blood.

be on the question, whether that law had acted oppres Mr. DAVIS, of South Carolina, (who had reported the sively on the individual in the present case, he could not bill,) gave a history of the previous attempts made at ke consent to an unconstitutional mode of relieving that in- mer sessions to get a bill of this description through Co dividual; and as such he regarded the mode proposed by gress, and the reasons which had hitherto prevented it the bill before the House. To pass that bill would be to He had reported the bill at the present session before be usurp not only judicial, but executive powers. The power had seen the proclamation of the President; he shor of pardon was the only power by which a person could not have attempted such a thing afterward. The pub be relieved, who had been convicted by the courts; that cation for which Matthew Lyon had been convicted for power had been confided by the constitution in the Pre- libel would, at this day, be no more pronounced a libel the sident of the United States, and in him alone it existed. the celebrated forty-fifth number of the North, Briton fr That power had not been exercised in the present case; which Mr. Wilkes had been imprisoned in London. 1 and now, because it was conceived that, at the period court paper would exhibit, any day, articles ten tim when that law was passed, it was passed under peculiar more libellous. This arose from the perfect liberty a circumstances that it was a law oppressive and unconsti- the press, which in this country, and in all free countries, tutional-would they, at the present period, bring upon constituted a sort of fourth estate, and as such possesed themselves the opprobrium of usurping both executive and exercised a vast power in the preservation of bery and judicial power, in attempting to give redress? The As to this bill's involving a reversal of a decision of the sentence under which the individual had suffered, in the Supreme Court, it was no more than was continually d present case, was, at the time it was passed, in conformi- in reference to cases under the revenue laws. But, ty with the law of the land, and in conformity with the point of fact, the Supreme Court never had, as such, de opinion of the courts, which had their origin in the con- cided that the sedition law was constitutional, (though stitution of the United States. It was unnecessary for would have been of litile consequence if they ba him to say what was his opinion of the sedition law. But The decision had been made only by some of the judges this he could say, and without hesitation, that if he should on the circuit. vote for that bill, he should conceive himself to be usurp- The court, as an appellate tribunal, never had gives ing powers, which were given by the constitution of the such a decision. But if they had, the people of the Un United States to the courts and to the Executive, and had reversed the decision both of the circuit courts, the to them only. President of the United States, and both Houses of Cop Mr. WILDE said that if he believed that such princi-gress; and who had dared to reverse the law spe ples were involved in this bill, as had been stated by the What administration had dared to ask for such a la gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. DRAYTON,] he As to the President alone having power to pardon Ly should vote against it. But the sedition law had been the President was the party offended; and, to send the pronounced by the ultimate and most solemn tribunal, he oppressed party to his oppressor for equity, was agains meant by the judgment of the people of the Union them- every principle of justice and of liberty. There was selves, to be unconstitutional; this was superior to the danger of the President, because a case like this work judgment of any court, and to this tribunal lay the last never recur again. Would Congress insist on holding appeal. The question now was whether Congress ought this money, when, in the case of Wilkes, the British Parnot to restore what had been taken away by an uncon- liament not only reversed the decision against him, but stitutional exercise of undelegated power? Why might indignantly erased the record of the transaction from their it not refund this fine, as release a surety under the re- minutes? Was there less of the spirit of liberty on this venue laws, who had been declared by the sentence of a side the water?

court to be liable for the act of his principal? Was this Mr. ANGEL would vote for the bill because he beer. (which was done by Congress every day) to be considered the money, to be refunded, had been extorted wree ed as setting aside the decisions of the courts? The bill fully. The voice of the whole American people, from went upon the old republican principle avowed and acted one end of the country to the other, had pronounced the upon by Mr. Jefferson. law unconstitutional, and it was never spoken of withd Mr. BURGES was unwilling to retain a dollar which reprobation. The Government was bound not only rightfully pertained to another; but in this case lacked refund the fine, but to pay smart money. He did not ass the power to act. The reconsideration of a judicial de- the House to reserve a decision of the Supreme Co cision was clearly an act of judicial power; and if it was, That court was a tribunal which the people had created. it belonged to the judicial department of the Government, and the people had told it what it might and what it migh and to that alone. Was it for that House to legislate out not do. Was he to be told that the court could do no of existence a decree of the Supreme Court? Could any wrong? That its decision, though flatly against the cor gentleman do it in consistence with his oath as a member stitution, was right, and must stand, and that the people, of that House? The House had not a scrap, not the through their Representatives, could not correct the erre least particle of judicial power-and how could it act Should the thing created say to the creator, thou sh judicially. He was astonished to hear reasonable men not control my action? All power resided in the people, talk of an appeal from the Supreme Court to the people, and when any of their agents did wrong they had and say that its decisions had been reversed at the bal power to correct the wrong. If a man had been stripped lot boxes. Had the people, when they delegated power of his property, and robbed of his rights, by one of Lace to the several departments of this Government, reserved agents, had they not the power to redress the wrong to themselves an appellate jurisdiction from the decisions had been said that the principles of this bill had bro of the courts? Mr. B. put the case of an individual guilty Charles to the scaffold. Ile insited that the people la of a treasonable resistance of the laws, who should come the right to carry any Charles to this scaffold who usurped to the President for pardon, and being refused, should their rights. He did not wish to bring any bedy to be instantly apply to Congress to have the sentence nullified. scaffold; he sought to bring a man off the scaffold wo The House might as well do that as this. He conjured had unjustly been put on it. gentlemen not to transcend those holy boundaries which Mr. CRAIG did not feel justified in voting for the bal separated the different departments of Government from The argument of his honorable friend from South Carolina each other. Just so certainly as this bill passed, so cer- [Mr. DRAYTON] had not been met. The gentleman frem tainly would that House arrogate to itself all those unli- New York [Mr. ANGEL] seemed to forget that the Hour

JAN. 12, 1833.]

Matthew Lyon's Fine.

[H. of R.

was no more than a creature; he spoke as if he supposed which the fine upon Mr. Lyon had been imposed. He it to possess all power, and not to reflect that its powers could not have risen for that purpose, for he considered had been restricted by its creator, and that it would as that, at this period, all men, from the Rocky mountains to much transgress the limits of its power by transcending Boston, took pride in acknowledging that the sedition and the powers vested in it, as could be done by the judges of alien laws were, to speak in the mildest terms, most unthe court of appeal, if they went beyond the powers vest- fortunate, most untoward, and most ill-timed. That it ed in them. if the bill were to pass the House, it would was arrayed against the just sentiments of the nation, and be a precedent for annulling any other enactment which against all the principles of constitutional liberty. This, persons might choose to call unconstitutional. If, because he observed in continuation, was now admitted by all parthe House found an existing law to be unconstitutional, ties, whether democratic, national republican, federalist, had it, therefore, power to reverse the decisions of the masons, or anti-masons. The fact was, that it was the courts upon that law? If it had, many persons would be mode adopted by the predominant party of this day to at great pains to show that laws, under which they had avenge itself, or to protect itself from the missiles hurled suffered penalties, however legally, and however justly, at it by the party then in opposition. The gentleman were unconstitutional. Here was a law passed, and a per- from whom the fine had been exacted, had now gone to son subjected to a fine under its enactment; the person that tenement from which no inhabitant returns-he had who is fined, comes to the Legislature and complains that passed to the bourne where the weary traveller reposes in the law under which the penalty is inflicted, is unconstitu- silence and in peace: but compensation he thought was tional. Congress must then determine on the constitu-justly due to those who represented him. Mr. J. went tionality of the law before it can be decided whether the on, by characterizing the law, and the fine of Mr. Lyon, fine is to be paid or not. Could the House overthrow the under it, as dangerous encroachments upon the liberty of decision of a court of the judiciary upon a plain enact the press. That liberty, he could not but confess, somement of law? The idea seemed absurd. If the House times degenerated into licentiousness; but it was in the assumed the power to say that a law was unconstitutional, very nature of things that it should, unless some means, and, therefore, to relieve a penalty inflicted under that law, some benignant means could be devised of alluring the it acted against the very letter of the constitution. All condition and the propensities of mankind generally. He, human power was liable to abuses, and in the formation of himself, (Mr. J.) had always thought it, and, in the the constitution of this country, power was placed in what result, had always found it, to be the better course to disare considered the safest depositories; some were given regard the weapons which would, under a free Governto one, some to another, and some to another, and it ment, be invariably aimed at men in public life. Few would be fatal to the constitution to allow that encroach-persons, perhaps, had been more assailed than himself, ments should be made by one upon the powers vested in but he had perceived the advantage of an absolute indifthe other. Such an encroachment would be assumption ference to the assaults. For his own part, he could see of that power to which the people only had a right. They little danger to the cause of freedom from the encroachhad a right to alter the constitution; Congress had not. If ments, if you choose to call them so, of the press. There the Executive, the Judiciary, or Congress, transcended the was more danger in the exercise of the judicial power; powers vested in them, let an appeal be made to the peo- for when the grappling irons of the judge were fixed upple, from whom all power emanated, and not to the le- on a man by the sheriff, he must pay the pound of flesh gislative power, which he considered to be the most dan- rigidly exacted by the law, or go to jail; and sometimes he gerous, inasmuch as it derived its power immediately from, had to do both. Besides, the voice of the people had and was next to the people. The reasons on which the been decisively pronounced upon the case. The vox popresent claim was grounded involved a question of law puli he would have considered in this House a vox Dei. connected with the constitution, and he did not think it No obloquy would be thrown upon the judge who tried belonged to Congress to set the decision aside. When the this case by the passage of this bill. It only provided that sedition law was passed, it was thought to be both consti- they should repair to the strong box, and from thence tutional and expedient; now, it was thought to be uncon- make reparation for the injury which had been inflicted. stitutional and inexpedient; and if the Legislature were to The judges had not been personally molested; no cudundertake the amending of injuries which had taken place gels had been used; no blood drawn; no bones broken; under ancient acts, then the prevalence of party would no violence used against them. He wished to God, Mr. become the standard by which justice would be meted J. said, and repeated, he wished to God that where wrong out. The party in power at one time might impose a tax had been done, they might have the satisfaction of afterwhich the succeeding party would have to refund. As wards peaceably doing right, without reference or resentthere was no institution by man perfect, so if men attempted to put an additional guard on the depositories of power, it would be often found to be an additional mischief added to that which it was intended to guard against.

ment for any thing which might formerly have occurred as to these unfortunate events. It was his firm and decided belief, that the money paid by Mr. Lyon had been wrongfully exacted; and also that those members of the Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, expressed a wish to re- Congress of the United States who had voted for the pasceive the indulgence of this House, in listening to him for sage of the alien and sedition laws, had voted hastily and a few minutes, on a subject which concerned persons re- without a proper understanding, it might be hoped of the siding in the State which he had the honor in part to re-question. He was sure, however, that if they were now present. The only question before them was, whether in the House, and called upon to vote, they would not they should refund a sum of money which, it must be ac- vote in a similar manner. His district, in the State of knowledged, had been unjustly taken from the individual Kentucky, would, he was well assured, warrant and sancwhose representatives, it was conceived, were equitably tion the vote which he should feel it his duty to give on the entitled to it. He considered that such would be the ad- present occasion. In former times, and in other countries, mitted fact, and certainly no member of this House would, when the maxim prevailed that the king could do no harm, at this time, when it was represented that the public the responsible ministers of that king were liable to be treasury is overflowing with money, object to the repay-carted to the guillotine or the gibbet. Those matters apment of the sum of one thousand dollars, with interest, to pertained to great national injuries. But here was a case those who had been injured by the demand and obtain- of injustice done to an individual man; and that which was ment of it. In the remarks he was submitting, he wished the case of one person, ought to be looked to as likely or to be understood as not raising or arguing the question of possible to befall to every member of the community. the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the law under One of the sagest maxims of antiquity, was that which

[ocr errors]
« 上一頁繼續 »