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

Mr. DICKERSON rose to offer a joint resolution to amend the constitution, so as to limit the service of any individual in the Presidency to two terms. He was understood to say, in substance, that, according to the existing article of the constitution on the subject, a President was eligible, by re-election at successive terms, for life. Usage had hitherto restricted the period of presidential service to two terms. Washington had refused to be elected for a third term; and his example, which had become a kind of law, had been followed to the present time; but it was a law so weak as to render it liable to yield to the pressure of any ambitious incumbent, who might desire to continue in office. In the Federal Convention, by whom the constitution had been framed, the principle of limiting the continuance of the President in office to a single term of seven years, had been carried on more than one occasion, but it was as often evaded. Some had been in lavor of more terms than one; others had supported the election of a President during good behavior. These preferred a number of terms to a single term, and had united in the adoption of the present provision. The usage of two terms had been so long continued, that he was disposed to adopt it as a part of the constitution. It had been approved by yo. opinion, and a joint resolution to that effect had, some sessions ago, been almost unanimously sanctioned by a vote of the Senate. If, however, the Senate should, at this time, prefer a single term of seven, or even of six years, he should have no objection. He then submitted the following joint resolution, promising, at the proper time, to as. sign his reasons in its favor:

“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, twothirds of both Houses concurring, That the following amendment to the constitution of the United States be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, which, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the States, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the constitution:

“That no person, who shall have bech elected to the office of President of the United States a second time, shall again be cligible to that office.”


At twelve o'clock the Senate again resolved itself into a High Court of Impeachment.

Mr. MER ED1th announced the absence of his friend and colleague, [Mr. Wint, in this case. He had been called home to Baltimore by the dangerous illness of one of his children. He felt the embarrassment of his own situation, occasioned by this unpleasant circumstance. To be deprived of the aid of his colleague at any time, or on any occasion, would to him be a cause of regret; but in a case of this magnitude, so interesting to the respondent, and so interesting to the community, to be deprived of his services was a source of deep regret. What he should, therefore, propose, with the consent of the managers on the other side, was, that they should proceed to finish the examination of the witnesses, on the part of the United States, and then that this honorable court should adjourn over to Monday next, to await the return of Mr. Wirt.

Mr. Bucha NAN said, that the managers on the part of the House of Representatives would acquiesce in whatever the court might determine to be its pleasure on the Occasion.

CHARLEs S. HEMPste An, EnwAnn CHA ar. Ess, and Wiian

The Presidency.—Trial of Judge Peck.

[Dec. 29, 30, 31.--JAN. 3, 4, 1831.

Tox Rector, witnesses in behalf of the impeachment,
were then called, sworn, examined, and cross-cxmined.
The certificate of naturalization of Mr. Lawless, the
protest of the Spanish Lieutenant Governor of Upper
Louisiana, against the regulations of Morales, and sundry
other papers, were produced as evidence.
Mr. Bech ANAN then said, that the Managers for the
House of Representatives here rested the cause of the
United States.
Mr. MEREpith renewed his application for a suspension
of the trial until Monday.
On motion of Mr. TAZEWELL, the court determined
to adjourn over to Monday next, at twelve o’clock.
The Scnate adjourned till to-morrow.

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

The honorable JOHN C. CALHOUN, Vice-President of the United States, appeared this day and took the Chair as President of the Senate. After the transaction of some morning business, the Senate resolved itself into a High Court of Impeachment. In consequence of the death of a daughter of Mr. Wint, the leading Counsel of Judge Peck, the Court of Impeachment, on motion of Mr. TAZEWELL, adjourned to twelve o'clock on Wednesday next. Mr. LIVINGSTON submitted the following resolution: Resolved, That nothing contained in any of the rules for conducting impeachments, made on the eleventh day of May, 1830, shall be so construed as to prevent any Senator, when he shall give his vote on the question of guilty or not guilty on any article in an impeachment, from assigning his reasons for such vote. The Senate proceeded to the consideration of Executive

business, and spent upwards of two hours on it, and then adjourned.



The resolution submitted yesterday by Mr. LIVINGSTON, explaining the rules to conduct impeachments, so as to allow any Senator to assign his reasons for his vote on the question of guilty or not guilty, was taken up.

Mr. L. said that the resolution was predicated upon a doubt whether the rules adopted in May last did, or did not, allow Senators to assign their reasons for the votes they might give on the pending impeachment. He was rather indifferent than otherwise as to the sate of the resolution. Its object was to settle the doubts which existed on the subject; and that object would be attained, whether the resolution should be rejected or adopted. Both sides of the question presented difficulties. The Court consisted of forty eight members; and if every member were to express his sentiments, after the Mana

gers and the Counsel for the respondent had been heard,

[ocr errors][ocr errors][graphic][graphic]

JAN. 5, 1831.]

a great deal of time would be consumed. On the other
hand, the right to speak on the occasion was one which
he considered a proper privilege; and he was, upon the
whole, disposed to affirm it.
At the suggestion of Mr. FORSYTH, the resolution
was laid upon the table until to-morrow.


The bill to abolish the charge of ten dollars for passports and four dollars for clearances granted to ships and vessels bound to foreign ports, and to repeal the duties on cinnamon and other spices, was taken up.

Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, said that the first section of this bill had been reported by the Committee of Finance in consequence of the representation in the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, that our navigating interest was in a depressed condition. The charges for passports and clearances had been imposed in 1796, when we were in want of revenue, and for one or two other reasons which the honorable Senator stated. The revenue of the Government was now abundant; and to take off these charges, which amounted to a very small annual sum, would afford some little relief to the merchants. The second section of the bill was also predicated, in part, on the report of the Secretary, in which it had been stated that nothing was, in fact, derived from the duties on spices. From some cause or other, the drawback on these articles amounted to more than the duties, More, therefore, was lost to the Government than was gained from that source. Spices had become a necessary of life, and were freely used in every family, however poor; and as the duties on them yielded nothing to the treasury, he could perceive no reason why they should not be repeal. ed, and why the bill should not pass.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

After the consideration of Executive business, the Senate adjourned.

W Enx Esn Ay, JAN. 5.

At twelve o'clock, the Senate resolved itself into a High
Court of Impeachment. -
Representatives, and the respondent and his counsel,
having taken their seats, -

Mr. MEREDITH rose and opened the grounds of defence. He said that the honorable manager, who had stated the case for the impeachment, had properly adverted to its great importance, both to the respondent and the community. To the respondent personally, it was undoubtedly of very deep interest, in its character and its consequences. He was charged with the exercise of an arbitrary, oppressive, and usurped judicial power, from malicious motives, to the great disparagement of public justice, and to the subversion of the liberties of the people of the United States. If this charge were sustained by this honorable court, the respondent would be doomed to meet not only the lasting reproaches of his fellow-citizens, but the grievous consequences of removal from of. fice, and, at the discretion of the court, sentenced to a perpetual ostracism from the confidence and honors of his country. Considerations of this kind entitled him to the most serious, calm, and dispassionate deliberation upon his case. Other considerations called for cool and candid examination. The surest safeguard of the liberties of the people was to be found in the firm and independent administration of justice; and it became them to look to the safety of that portal which the constitution had placed around the judicial authority of the country. If the doctrine on which this impeachment had been supported were sustained, questions would arise out of the case of deep and lasting importance. His duty on the eccasion was an exceedingly simple one; it was within prescribed limits, and to these he should confine himself. He had

Navigation and Commerce.--Trial of Judge Peck.

The managers of the House of


to state the grounds of defence on which the respondent relied, with the evidence to support that defence. The transaction which had produced this impeachment could be told in a very few words. The respondent, as judge of the District Court of the United States in Missouri, had pronounced an opinion in a case of very great importance, and had been induced to publish that opinion in one of the newspapers of that country. It was already in proof, and would more fully be shown in evidence hereafter, that the opinion had been published not only at the request of the members of the bar, but of those persons generally who were interested in the case. One of the counsel concerned in it had thought proper afterwards to publish, anonymously, under the signature of “A Citizen,” not a fair criticism upon it, but a bare enumeration of what he termed the errors of the Court, some of its principal errors in fact and in doctrine, some of the assumptions of the judge, without assigning any reasons to sustain the charge. This publication, to the mind of the respondent, appeared to be a gross and palpable misrepresentation of his opinion, calculated to bring his court into disrespect; and he proceeded to attach and punish its author for the contempt. After a patient hearing of two or three days; after giving to the counsel of the author every opportunity to defend him, and to him every opportunity to purge himself of all intentional disrespect to the court; after the peremptory refusal of Mr. Lawless to answer the interrogatories propounded to him, and his reassertion of the truth of his publication, Judge Peck had sentenced him to twentyfour hours' imprisonment, and to a suspension from practice in his court for eighteen months. For this the respondent had been charged with a high misdemeanor, and with the wilful and malicious exercise of an arbitrary and oppressive judicial power. Mr. M. then proceeded to state the facts and evidence by which the respondent would be able to establish the positions, that a contempt had been committed by Mr. Lawless; that the court possessed a legal warrant to punish him for the contempt; and that, if not, the judge was influenced, in the case, by a sense of official obligation and duty, and not by the wilful, malicious, and arbitrary motive and intention imputed to him in the article of impeachment. He gave a history and character of the land claims, and the transactions out of which this impeachment had grown; the arduous and perilous difficulties which the respondent had to encounter in the exercise of his jurisdiction over the alleged concessions claimed under the Spanish authorities, and the frauds, meditated and apprehended, against which he had to guard. He described the case of Soulard, which had led to this impeachment, as a select and test cause, and said that it required no prophetic spirit in the judge to foresee the dissatisfaction which an adverse decision would produce in all the claimants. It would extinguish their hopes, as long as the decision remained unrepealed, or the court unchecked. Accordingly, general dissatisfaction and dismay on the part of suitors did ensue. The Judge postponed the enrolment of his decree in the case, to enable Mr. Lawless and his associate counsel to put in their exceptions to it, or to furnish further argument upon it. This was declined by them. The judge published his opinion. The motives for its publication were summed up in his answer to the charge in the article of impeachment. He perceived that such publications were usual both in England and America, and saw no impropriety in the practice. On the contrary, the branch of law involved in the case was new; its grounds had not been fully argued at the bar, and it was proper that they should be fully opened for the deliberate consideration of counsel; it was right that their clients should see the reasoning of the court on the subject, and, if satisfactory, that they should be saved from any further expense. It was proper that they should see that the court had not hastily and incorsiderately assumed the principles upon which the opinion Trial of Judge Peck.


[JAN. 6 to 12, 1831.

was founded, but that it had conscientiously, upon facts and arguments which it could not resist, come to its conclusion in the case. Upon these reasons, the respondent confidently relied for the justification of the publication of his opinion. Eight days after, it was followed by the publication of “A Citizen,” in another newspaper. In this, the respondent saw a gross and palpable misrepresentation, calculated to bring ridicule and contempt upon the court, to provoke the resentment of the claimants towards the judge, and to break down the court by the force of public opinion. Was the respondent justified in these apprehensions? Notwithstanding the gloss put upon the subject by the comparison which the honorable manager [Mr. McDuff IE) had instituted between the opinion of the judge and the publication of Mr. Lawless, the respondent relied upon a candid examination and comparison by this honorable court. He would be able to show, by gentlemen familiar with the case, that he was by no means singular in attributing misrepresentation to the publication of “A Citizen.” Men of intelligence, lawyers, acquainted with all the facts and doctrines of the case, looking with a single eye to see whether misrepresentation was to be found in the publication or not, would establish the fact. These same witnesses would show the effect of this misrepresentation. If Mr. Lawless's publication could be considércd an accurate representation of the conclusions to which the court had come in that case, they were so preposterous, so absurd, that nothing but ignorance—an ignorance announting to idiocy—nothing but downright corruption, could have influenced the judge. The effect of the misrepresentation had been to destroy confidence in the court; the disappointment of the claimants was converted into hostility to the judge; and so great had been the distrust and dissatisfaction, that memorials were sent to Congress, the object of which was to deprive the court of its jurisdiction over the claims, and to transfer it to another tribunal. If, therefore, the respondent saw, or this honorable court should believe that he conscientiously thought he saw, an evil design in the author of the publication, what course would they say was left him to pursue? Painful as it was, there was but one course for him to take; and that was to guard the sacred trust committed to his charge, and to punish the contempt as he had punished it. In this, Mr. M. contended, that the respondent had been justified by immemorial usage; by the inherent power of the courts; by a power which, although sometimes questioned, had remained untouched in every political struggle that had taken place; untouched in every constitution that had been adopted in the country. It was justified by American precedents, by the best lawyers and purest atriots that ever adorned the bench. It would be shown, in due time, that the power had been exercisca by all the State courts; by the highest court in the Union; by the Circuit and District Courts of the United States, in cases far more doubtful than this. The respondent was justified, in treating and punishing the publication as a contempt, not only by the statute and common law, but by the law universal, by precedent, by the decisions of all the courts in the country. But, if he were not so justified, had he been governed by the malicious intention imputed to him in this impeachment, what motive could he have had He had not had any personal disagreement with Mr. Lawless. No previous quarrel had occurred between them. No lurking resentment existed. All their measures with each other had been of a perfectly amicable nature. Was a malicious motive to be found in the character of the respondent? It would be shown that he was mild, conciliatory, and equable in temper; respectful and patient in his deportment towards all-–to the members of the bar, the subordinate officers of the court, and to suitors. Was such a motive to be inferred from the transaction itself”

action only in colors of resentment; not by witnesses who were hostile, or who were present in court only at intervals while the case was pending; but by calm, disinterested, and intelligent witnesses, who were present during the whole or greater part of the time, that the manner of the judge was not more vehement than it usually had been when his mind was deeply exercised on any subject; that it was as mild as any judge who had ever graced the bench; that the language he used on the occasion was addressed to the publication, and not to its author; and that, in fact, he looked beyond Mr. Lawless, to other and higher considerations, in awarding the attachment and punishment to which he had been sentenced. [This is but “a bird's-eye view” of the speech of Mr. M.] Ron ERT W Ash, Esq. a Judge of the Supreme Court of Missouri, was then called, sworn, and examined as a witness in behalf of the respondent. At the conclusion of his testimony— The Court adjourned over till twelve, and the Senate till eleven o’clock, to-morrow.

Tii U as DAY, JANUARY 6.

After the transaction of some minor business, at twelve o'clock, the Senate again resolved itself into a High Court of Impeachment.

Joh N K. WALKER, of St. Louis, and Mr. PETTIs, a member of the House of Representatives, were called, sworn, and examined as witnesses, in behalf of the respondent. Then adjourned.

FRIDAY, JANU All x 7. The Senate again resolved itself into a Court of Impeachment. J. B. C. Lucas, W. C. CARR, and JEsse E. LIN DELL, were called, sworn, and examined in behalf of the respondent. Judge W.Ash was re-examined in part. The court then adjourned to Monday. The Senate ordered two opinions of Judge Peck to be printed, and also adjourned to Monday.

Mox DAY, JANUAur 10.

After disposing of petitions, resolutions, and some private bills, the Senate again resolved itself into a High Court of Impeachment.

Mr. Men on its apologized for the absence of Mr. Wint, occasioned by indisposition,

The deposition of Edw and BATEs, John BENT, and SAMUEL MERRY, in behalf of the respondent, were, with the exception of certain parts expunged by agreement, and agreeably to a decision of the court, received and read as evidence. Judge CARR was again called and re-examined; and two or three other witnesses gave their testimony. The whole evidence was closed, with the exception of some papers in the General Land Office.


The Senate again sat as a Court of Impeachment.

The sitting was consumed in the production and examination of documentary evidence and oral testimony in the case of Judge Peck. The honorable Mr. BEstox was called to prove the correctness of certain extracts translated by him from a Spanish ordinance into English. Colonel Lawless, Mr. GEY En, and one or two other witnesses were re-examined. Finally, at about four o'clock, it was announced by the managers for the House and the counsel for the respondent, that the cvidence was closed, and that they would proceed with the argument to-morrow. Adjourned.

WEDx Esday, JANUARY 12. The senate again resolved itself into a High Court of

It would be proved, not by those who could see the trans


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

The Senate resumed its legislative character, and took up the bill to provide for the payment hereafter of an annuity of six thousand dollars to the Seneca tribe of Indians. Mr. FORSYTH said he did not recollect the particulars of this bill; but he was under the impression that the Go. vernment was under no obligation to pay the money proposed to be appropriated to these Indians. He called upon some gentleman of the committee by whom the bill had been reported, to say whether the obligation of the Government was not to invest one hundred thousand dollars for the Seneca Indians; and whether that obligation had not been performed? Mr. DUDLEY replied, that, by the treaty with these Indians, the United States were bound to invest in the President, as trustee for them, in stock of the old Bank of the United States, the sum of one hundred thousand dollars. The charter of that Bank had expired. The money was then invested in six per cent. United States' stock. That stock having been reduced, three per cent. stock was purchased by Government for the Senecas. The Government, nevertheless, thought it their duty to continue to pay them six per cent. and did until a year or two ago. Since that time, the War Department conceived that there was no law to justify the payment of more than the three per cent. upon the amount of the investment. The Indians refused to receive it. “The object of this bill was to give an authority to pay the six per cent. These Indians were much in want of the money. Some of the tribe were now here waiting for it. Mr. FORSYTH believed the statement of the member from New York to be correct, and, if so, it appeared that the obligation of the Government had been performed. Were we then bound to give these Indians six per cent. for ever? Their hundred thousand dollars, with the profits upon the sale of that sum, amounting to twelve thousand more, were secured to them. The Government might be bound to invest the money in the most profitable stock for them, but not to secure them six per cent. He considered it best to leave the matter as it stood, or to make a more profitable investment of the money, if that could be done. These Indians had been deceived; too much indulgence had heretofore been shown to them by the administrators of the War Department; and this had been a deception, leading them to suppose that they had a claim to six per cent. per annum upon the original sum invested for them. Mr. WHITE said the bill provided for two objects. The object of the first section was to put upon a perma

The Seneca Indians.


nent footing the one hundred and twelve thousand dollars which had been invested in three per cents. for these Indians. No gentleman could doubt that it was competent for the Government to appropriate that sum permanently for their use and benefit. The object of the second section was to appropriate an additional sum sufficient to make up the difference between six thousand dollars and the three per cent. interest for 1830. Mr. Morris had purchased lands from the Seneca tribe, and had agreed to pay one hundred thousand dollars for them. That sum was to be placed in the hands of the President, as their trustee, and to be used for the purchase of stock in the old Bank of the United States, which yielded six per cent. While the charter of that bank continued, there was no difficulty on the subject. After it expired, the money was vested in three per cent. stock, which did not yield six per cent. For reasons satisfactory to them, the Government paid the deficiency annually, out of the contingent funds of the War Department, until this administration came into power. They deemed the practice inproper; and the President had, therefore, presented the subject to the consideration of Congress. The simple question was, whether it would be right and better to make up the difference for one year, in preference to a misunderstanding with thcse Indians. He thought it would be better to make it up for 1830, and to make a similar appropriation for the present year, until the matter could be fixed on a permanent footing, than that any discontent should be permitted to exist on the part of the Indians. The investment in three per cent. stock had been made without the knowledge or consent of the Indians. They had no part in it. The Government had done it of its own accord, no doubt from the best of motives, probably because the best investment that could be made at the time. He thought the bill ought to pass. Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, said that the Indians had always expected six per cent. If the one hundred and twelve thousand dollars in three per cent. were sold at this time, they would, he believed, produce more than one hundred thousand. He could see no objection to the bill. Mr. FORSYTH said that his object had been answered in bringing this subject before the Senate. It was admitted that the United States had received no property from these Indians. The lands had been obtained by Mr. Morris; and because the Government had been made trustees in the case, they must pay this six per cent. in perpetuity. The simple question was, whether the United States shall now bind themselves to a perpetual appropriation of upwards of two thousand six hundred dollars per annum, merely because they had assumed to become the trustees for these Indians. Mr. F. concluded by asking the Secretary of the Senate to read that part of the treaty with these Indians, under which the obligation in question had been incurred. Mr. SANFORD inquired what were we bound in good faith to do to those Indians? We were now ourselves construing the treaty with them. What was the understanding of the Indians of this treaty? All the acts done under it had been our own acts. By these the Indians understood that they were to receive six per cent. upon the one hundred thousand dollars. This Government had thought so. The compact had been heretofore so construed by us, and so understood by the Indians. All the changes in the investments for them had been our own acts. They knew nothing of them. . The present was a new construction of the compact with them, with which they had nothing to do. It had been done without their assent. He was in favor of the bill. Mr. SMITH, in order to obtain some information on the subject, moved to lay the bill on the table till to-morrow morning.

It was accordingly so ordered.



Mr. NOBLE submitted the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Commissioner of the General Land Office be directed to communicate to the Senate copies of all the proceedings on file in his office, relative to the location of lands in the State of Indiana, by the Commissioners appointed on the part of the State of Indiana, and the Commissioner or Agent appointed by the authority of the United States, under the act entitled “An act to authorize the State of Indiana to locate and make a road therein named:” also copies of all letters addressed to him, relating to the subject of the location of the land in ques. tion; together with the decision of the late acting Commissioner of the General Land Office on the subject.

Mr. N. said he was aware that, by the rules of the Senate, it required their unanimous consent to consider the resolution at this time. He hoped that such consent would be given. His object was to receive copies of all the evidence in the office of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, public and private, which had a bearing upon the subject embraced in the resolution which he had offered. It was a duty which he owed to the people of Indiana to make the call for the evidence, upon a subject which interested them. He was satisfied that the people of that State would never yield to the decision given to the act of Congress named in the resolution, by the late acting Commissioner of the General Land Office. He expected that the Legislature of the State of Indiana, now in session, would, by memorial to Congress, shortly represent the rights of the State by fact and law, or to some other tribunal. To meet their views promptly, when they arrive, he desired all the evidence officially, to enable the Senate to act.

The resolution was then, by unanimous consent, read a second time, and adopted.

The remainder of the day was spent in disposing of other motions, and debating the bill for the relief of Peters and Pond, of Boston.

Adjourned to Monday.

Monn Ay, JAN. 17.

A message was received from the House of Represen. tatives, announcing the resolution of that House to attend the Senate, from day to day, during the argument in the impeachment now pending against JAMEs H. Peck, District Judge of Missouri. THE STORM –VESSELS IN DISTRESS. Mr. LIVINGSTON, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to enable the President to employ, without delay, two or more vessels, with supplies of men, provisions, and other necessaries, to cruise off the coast of the United States, for the purpose of supplying and succouring vessels that may have suffered by stress of weather during the present inclement season, and appropriating fifteen thousand dollars for carrying the objects of the bill into effect. In asking leave to introduce this bill, Mr. L. said that its object was to relieve our vessels and seamen that might be on the coast at this very inclement season. Those only who had been in vessels in that situation, could real. ize the suffering and distress to which they and their crews were exposed. The bill was intended to enable the President to fit out two or more ships, to supply them with men and provisions that might be needed at this trying moment. - Mr. HAYNE inquired whether the object was to au. thorize the President to send out armed vessels belonging to the navy, or merchant vessels, and whether any estimate of the expense had been obtained. Mr. LIVINGSTON replied, that the President would despatch on this service any vessel that might be ready for it, whether merchantmen or others. As to the amount

[blocks in formation]

of the expense, he had relied on mercantile gentlemen better qualified than he was to judge. Mr. TAZEWELL said, in substance, that he considered the bill to be unconstitutional; that, if it were based upon that article of the constitution which authorized Congress to regulate commerce, it involved a more extensive exer. cise of power, that of enabling the President to send vessels along the coast to pick up wrecks, than had ever been claimed, even under that clause. Before the bill could be passed by Congress, and approved by the President, the effects of the storm would be over. He doubted the power of Congress to pass the bill, and he considered that it would be very partial in its beneficial operation. Mr. LIVINGSTON said he had not expected to hear the extraordinary objection which the Senator from Virginia had urged against the bill. He did not derive his constitutional authority for the bill from the clause for regulating commerce, but from the general power of the Government to protect commerce, and to manage our foreign relations. Whence did we derive the power to build light-houses, beacons, and buoys? What argument was there for employing the navy on such occasions, that did not equally authorize the employment of merchant vessels? He knew of none. So much for the constitutional objection. Now for the expediency of the measure. He did not think that it was to be ridiculed out of the Senate by the suggestion, that these vessels were to be sent to pick up wrecks. They were to be sent out to prevent wrecks; not to remedy the mischief, but to prevent it. The storm had now lasted four days. It was not over. The wind was still high. Vessels had been, probably, driven forty or fifty leagues from the coast. It might be days, and weeks, and months, before some of them could get into port. Their seamen might be frozen; their rigging stiff with snow and ice. In this situation, they would consider the relief proposed to be sent to them, as a messenger from heaven. The constitutional objection weighed nothing with him. If the measure were, as it would be, useful and humane, that was enough for him in the present instance. It was not New York only, but the Capes of Virginia, and elsewhere, from which vessels could be promptly despatched, to rescue our seamen from the fatigues, and dangers, and calamities, incident to this stormy season. Mr. SILSBEE said that the proposed measure would not be confined to one port. Orders could be immediately sent to New York, Norfolk, and Charleston, to afford the relief from suffering and danger so well described by the Senator from Louisiana. Some small vessels, with beef, pork, and other articles, could be at once provided to meet ships in distress, and would truly be considered as angels from heaven. No one who had not experienced them, could imagine the distress to which our seafaring people were liable at this season of the year. As to the expense, more revenue would probably be saved by the measure than it would cost. Mr. TAZEWELL said he should interpose no other objection than his vote to the bill. IIe had asked the honorable Senator from Louisiana, whether he found his authority for this measure in the power of Congress to regulate commerce? but he had received no new light upon the subject. The gentleman and he differed on constitutional questions from the bottom. He could not find this authority in the power to create and support a navy, nor in the power to control our foreign relations. What, sir! the power to protect our own ships to be found in the power over our foreign relations? He repeated, that, before this bill could pass into a law, the mischief would be done. The danger was not at Savannah, Charleston, or New Orleans; it would be greater along the coast of Maine than any where else. The storm raged there with the greatest violence. It was not contemplated to send any relief to that coast. The spots

« 上一頁繼續 »