Thirty Years' View (Vol. I of 2)

"By the constitution of the United States, power is given to Congress to admit new States into the Union. It is in the character of a State that any portion of our citizens, inhabiting any part of the territory of the United States, must apply to be admitted into the Union; a State government and constitution must first be formed. It is not necessary for the power of Congress, and I doubt whether Congress has such power, to prescribe the mode by which the people shall form a State constitution; and, for this plain reason, that Congress would be entirely incompetent to the exercise of any coercive power to carry into effect the mode they might prescribe. I cannot, therefore, vote against the admission of Arkansas into the Union, on the ground that there was no previous act of Congress to authorize the holding of her convention. As a member of Congress, I will not look beyond the constitution that has been presented. I have no right to presume it was formed by incompetent persons, or that it does not fully express the opinions and wishes of the people of that country. It is true that the United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government: meaning, in my judgment, that Congress shall not permit any power to establish, in any State, a government without the assent of the people of such State; and it will not be amiss that we remember here, also, that that guaranty is to the State, and not as to the formation of the government by the people of the State; but should it be admitted that Congress can look into the constitution of a State, in order to ascertain its character, before such State is admitted into the Union, yet I contend that Congress cannot object to it for the want of a republican form, if it contains the great principle that all power is inherent in the people, and that the government drew all its just powers from the governed.

"The people of the territory of Arkansas, having formed for themselves a State government, having presented their constitution for admission into the Union, and that constitution being republican in its form, and believing that the people who prepared and sent this constitution here are sufficiently numerous to entitle them to a representative in Congress, and believing, also, that Congress has no right or power to regulate the system of police these people have established for themselves, and the ordinance of 1787 not operating on them, nor have they entered into any agreement with the United States that slavery should not be admitted in their State, have the right to choose this lot for themselves, though I regret that they made this choice. Yet believing that this government has no right to interfere with the question of slavery in any of the States, or prescribe what shall or shall not be considered property in the different States, or by what tenure property of any kind shall be holden, but that all these are exclusively questions of State policy, I cannot, as a member of this body, refuse my vote to admit this State into the Union, because her constitution recognizes the right and existence of slavery."

Mr. Alexander Porter, of Louisiana, would vote against the admission, on account of the "revolutionary" proceedings of the people in the formation of their constitution, without a previous act of Congress. It is believed that Mr. Clay voted upon the same ground. There were but six votes against the admission; namely: Mr. Clay, Mr. Knight of Rhode Island, Mr. Porter, Mr. Prentiss, Mr. Robbins of Rhode Island, and Mr. Swift. It is believed that Mr. Robbins and Mr. Knight voted on the same ground with Mr. Clay and Mr. Porter. So, the bill was easily passed, and the two bills went together to the House of Representatives, where they gave rise to proceedings, the interest of which still survives, and a knowledge of which, therefore, becomes necessary. The two bills were made the special order for the same day, Wednesday, the 8th of June, Congress being to adjourn on the 4th of July; and the Michigan bill having priority on the calendar, as it had first passed the Senate. Mr. Wise, of Virginia, on the announcement of the Michigan bill, from the chair, as the business before the House, moved to postpone its consideration until the ensuing Monday, in order to proceed with the Arkansas bill. Mr. Thomas, of Maryland, objected to the motion, and said:

"He would call the attention of the House to the position of the two bills on the Speaker's table, and endeavor to show that this postponement is entirely unnecessary. These bills are from the Senate. By the rules of this House, two, I may say three, questions will arise, to be decided before they can become a law, so far as this House is concerned. We must first order each of these bills to be read a third time; the next question then will be, when shall the bill be read a third time? And the last question to be decided will be, shall the bill pass? Why, then, should Southern men now make an effort to give precedence to the bill for the admission of Arkansas into the Union? If they manifest distrust, must we not expect that fears will be entertained by Northern members, that unreasonable opposition will be made to the admission of Michigan? Let us proceed harmoniously, until we find that our harmony must be interrupted. We shall lose nothing by so doing. If a majority of the House be in favor of reading a third time the Michigan bill, they will order it to be done. After that vote has been taken, we can refuse to read the bill a third time, go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, then consider the Arkansas bill, report it to the House, order it to be read a third time, and in this order proceed to read them each a third time, if a majority of the House be in favor of that proceeding. Let it not be said that Southern men may be taken by surprise, if the proceeding here respectfully recommended be adopted. If the friends of Arkansas are sufficiently numerous to carry now the motion to postpone, they can arrest at any time the action of the House on the Michigan bill, until clear undubitable indications have been given that the Missouri compromise is not to be disregarded."

These latter words of Mr. Thomas revealed the point of jealousy between some Southern and Northern members, and brought the observance of the Missouri compromise fully into view, as a question to be tried. Mr. Wise, after some remarks, modified his motion by moving to refer both bills to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, with instructions to incorporate the two bills into one bill. Mr. Patton, of Virginia, opposed the latter motion, and gave his reasons at length against it. If his colleague would so modify his motion as to move to refer both bills to the Committee of the Whole House, without the instructions, he would vote for it. Mr. Bouldin, of Virginia, successor to Mr. Randolph, said:

"He agreed with his colleague [Mr. Patton] in a fact too plain for any to overlook, that both bills must be acted on separately, and that one must have the preference in point of time. Michigan had it at that time – he was willing it should hold it. His colleague [Mr. Patton] seemed to think that in the incipient steps in relation to this bill, it would be well enough to suffer Michigan to hold her present position; but that, before the final passage of the bill, it would be well to require of the House (or rather of the non-slaveholding portion of the Union) to give some unequivocal guaranty to the South that no difficulty would be raised as to the reception of Arkansas in regard to negro slavery. Mr. B. was willing to go on with the bill for the admission of Michigan. He had the most implicit confidence in the House, particularly alluding to the non-slaveholding part of the Union, that no serious difficulty would be made as to the admission of Arkansas in regard to negro slavery. If there were any serious difficulties to be raised in the House to the admission of Arkansas, upon the ground of negro slavery, he wished immediate notice of it. If his confidence was misplaced, he wished to be corrected as soon and as certainly as possible. If there really was any intention in the House of putting the South under any difficulty, restraint, limit, any shackle or embarrassment on the South on account of negro slavery (some gentlemen said slavery, but he said negro slavery), he wished to know it. If there were any individuals having such feeling, he wished to know them; he wished to hear their names upon yeas and nays. If there were a majority, he should act promptly, decisively, immediately upon it, and had no doubt all the South would do the same. There might be some question as to the claim of non-slaveholding States to stop the progress of Southern habits and Southern influence Northward. As to Arkansas, there could be no question; and if seriously pressed, such claims could leave no doubt on the minds of the South as to the object of those who pressed them, or the course to be pursued by them. Such a stand being taken by the non-slaveholding States, it would make little difference whether Michigan was in or out of this Union. He said he would sit down, again assuring the House, and the gentlemen particularly from the non-slaveholding States, of his entire confidence that no such thing would be seriously attempted by any considerable numbers of this House."

Mr. Lewis, of Worth Carolina, took decided ground in favor of giving the Arkansas bill the priority of decision; and expressed himself thus:

"He should vote for the proposition of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wise] to lay the bill for the admission of Michigan into the Union on the table, until the bill for the admission of Arkansas should be first passed. He should do this, for the obvious reason that there were dangers, he would not say how great, which beset Arkansas, and which did not beset Michigan. The question of slavery could be moved as a condition for the admission of Arkansas, and it could not as a condition to the admission of Michigan. I look upon the Arkansas question as therefore the weaker of the two, and for that reason I would give it precedence. Besides, upon the delicate question which may be involved in the admission of Arkansas, we may be the weaker party in this House. For that reason, if gentlemen mean to offer no obstructions to the admission of Arkansas, let them give the assurance by helping the weaker party through with the weaker question. We of the South cannot, and will not, as I pledge myself, offer any objections to the domestic institutions of Michigan with regard to slavery. Can any gentleman make the same pledge that no such proposition shall come from the North? Besides, the two bills are not now on an equal footing. The bill for the admission of Arkansas must be sent to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. The bill for the admission of Michigan need not necessarily go to that committee. It will therefore pass in perfect safety, while we shall be left to get Arkansas along, through the tedious stages of commitment, as well as we can. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Sutherland] says that these two bills will be hostages for the safety of each other. Not, sir, if you pass the stronger bill in advance of the weaker. Besides, the North want no hostages on this subject. Their institutions cannot be attacked. We of the South want a hostage, to protect us on a delicate question; and the effect of giving precedence to the Michigan bill is to deprive us of that hostage."

Mr. Cushing, of Massachusetts, addressed the committee at length on the subject, of which only the leading passages can be given. He said:

"The House has now continued in session for the space of eighteen or nineteen hours, without any interval of refreshment or rest. It is impossible to mistake the intentions of the ruling majority. I see clearly that the committee is resolved to sit out the debate on these important bills for the admission of Michigan and Arkansas into the Union. This, it is apparent, the majority have the power as well as the right to do. Whether it be just and reasonable, is another question. I shall not quarrel, however, with the avowed will of the House. It has done me the favor to hear me with patience on other occasions; and I cannot render it the unfit return of trespassing on its indulgence at this unseasonable hour, nor seek to defeat its purposes by speaking against time. But having been charged with sundry memorials from citizens of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, remonstrating against that clause in the constitution of Arkansas which relates to the subject of slavery, I should be recreant to the trust they have reposed in me, if I suffered the bill for the admission of Arkansas to pass without a word of protestation. The extraordinary circumstances under which I rise to address the committee impel me to brevity and succinctness; but they would afford me no justification for a passive acquiescence in the admission of Arkansas into the Union, with all the sins of its constitution upon its head.

"The constitution of Arkansas, as communicated to Congress in the memorial of the people of that Territory, praying to be admitted into the Union, contains the following clause: 'The General Assembly shall have no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves without the consent of the owners. They shall have no power to prevent emigrants to this State from bringing with them such persons as are deemed slaves by the laws of any one of the United States.' This provision of the constitution of Arkansas is condemned by those whom I represent on this occasion as anti-republican, as wrong on general principles of civil polity, and as unjust to the inhabitants of the non-slaveholding States. They object to it as being, in effect, a provision to render slavery perpetual in the new State of Arkansas. I concur in reprobating such a clause. The legislature of Arkansas is forbidden to emancipate the slaves within its jurisdiction, even though it should be ready to indemnify fully their owners. It is forbidden to exclude slaves from being imported into the State. I cannot, by any vote of mine, ratify or sanction a constitution of government which undertakes in this way to foreclose in advance the progress of civilization and of liberty for ever. In order to do justice to the unchangeable opinions of the North, without, in any respect, invading the rights, real or supposed, of the South, my colleague [Mr. Adams], the vigilant eye of whose unsleeping mind there is nothing which escapes, has moved an amendment of the bill for the admission of Arkansas into the Union, so that, if the amendment be adopted, the bill would read as follows: 'The State of Arkansas is admitted into the Union upon the express condition that the people of the said State shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the public lands within the said State, nor shall they levy a tax on any of the lands of the United States within the said State; and nothing in this act shall be construed as an assent by Congress [to the article in the constitution of the said State relating to slavery and to the emancipation of the slaves, or] to all or to any of the propositions contained in the ordinance of the said convention of the people of Arkansas, nor to deprive the said State of Arkansas of the same grants, subject to the same restrictions, which were made to the State of Missouri.' This amendment is, according to my judgment, reasonable and proper in itself, and the very least that any member from the North can propose in vindication of the opinions and principles of himself and his constituents.

"It is opposed, however, by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wise], with his accustomed vigor and ability. He alleges considerations adverse to the motion. He interrogates the friends of the proposed amendment in regard to its force, effect, and purposes, in terms which seem to challenge response; or which, at any rate, if not distinctly and promptly met, would leave the objections which those interrogatories impliedly convey, to be taken as confessed and admitted by our significant silence. What may be the opinions of Martin Van Buren as to this particular bill, what his conduct formerly in reference to a similar case, is a point concerning which I can have no controversy with the gentleman from Virginia. I look only to the merits of the question before the committee. There is involved in it a principle which I regard as immeasurably more important than the opinion of any individual in this nation, however high his present situation or his possible destiny – the great principle of constitutional freedom. The gentleman from Virginia, who, I cheerfully admit, is always frank and honorable in his course upon this floor, has just declared that, as a Southern man, he had felt it to be his duty to come forward and take a stand in behalf of an institution of the South. That institution is slavery. In like manner, I feel it to be my duty, as a Northern man, to take a counter stand in conservation of one among the dearest of the institutions of the North. This institution is liberty. It is not to assail slavery, but to defend liberty, that I speak. It is demanded of us, Do you seek to impose restrictions on Arkansas, in violation of the compromise under which Missouri entered the Union? I might content myself with replying that the State of Massachusetts was not a party to that compromise. She never directly or indirectly assented to it. Most of her Representatives in Congress voted against it. Those of her Representatives who, regarding that compromise in the light of an act of conciliation important to the general interests of the Union, voted for it, were disavowed and denounced at home, and were stigmatized even here, by a Southern member, as over-compliant towards the exactingness of the South. On the first introduction of this subject to the notice of the House, the gentleman from Virginia made a declaration, which I particularly noticed at the time, for the purpose of having the tenor of the declaration distinctly understood by the House and by the country. The gentleman gave it to be known that, if members from the North held themselves not engaged by the terms of the compromise under which Missouri entered into the Union, neither would members from the South hold themselves engaged thereby; and that, if we sought to impose restrictions affecting slave property on the one hand, they might be impelled, on the other hand, to introduce slavery into the heart of the North. I heard the suggestion with the feelings natural to one born and bred in a land of equality and freedom. I took occasion to protest, in the surprised impulse of the moment, against the idea of putting restrictions on liberty in one quarter of the Union, in retaliation of the attempt to limit the spread of slavery in another quarter. I held up to view the inconsistency and inconsequence of uttering the warmest eulogiums on freedom one day, of pouring out aspirations that the spirit of liberty might pervade the universe, and at another time threatening the North with the establishment of Slavery within its borders, if a Northern member should deprecate the legal perpetuation of slavery in a proposed new State of the West. It did not fall within the rules of pertinent debate to pursue the subject at that time; and I have but a single idea to present now, in addition to what I then observed. It is not possible for me to judge whether the gentleman from Virginia, and any of his friends or fellow-citizens at the South, deliberately and soberly cherish the extraordinary purpose which his language implied. I trust it was but a hasty thought, struck out in the ardor of debate. To introduce slavery into the heart of the North? Vain idea! Invasion, pestilence, civil war, may conspire to exterminate the eight millions of free spirits who now dwell there. This, in the long lapse of ages incalculable, is possible to happen. You may raze to the earth the thronged cities, the industrious villages, the peaceful hamlets of the North. You may lay waste its fertile valleys and verdant hill-sides. You may plant its very soil with salt, and consign it to everlasting desolation. You may transform its beautiful fields into a desert as bare as the blank face of the sands of Sahara. You may reach the realization of the infernal boast with which Attila the Hun marched his barbaric hosts into Italy, demolishing whatever there is of civilization or prosperity in the happy dwellings of the North, and reducing their very substance to powder, so that a squadron of cavalry shall gallop over the site of populous cities, unimpeded as this wild steeds on the savannas of the West. All this you may do: it is within the bounds of physical possibility. But I solemnly assure every gentleman within the sound of my voice, I proclaim to the country and to the world, that, until all this be fully accomplished to the uttermost extremity of the letter, you cannot, you shall not, introduce slavery into the heart of the North."

A point of order being raised whether the two bills were not required by a rule of the House to go before the Committee of the Whole, the Speaker, Mr. Polk, decided in the affirmative – the Arkansas bill, upon the ground of containing an appropriation for the salary of judges; and that of Michigan because it provided for judges, which involved a necessity for an appropriation. The two bills then went into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speight, of North Carolina, in the chair. Many members spoke, and much of the speaking related to the boundaries of Michigan, and especially the line between herself and the State of Ohio – to which no surviving interest attaches. The debate, therefore, will only be pursued as it presents points of present and future interest. These may be assumed under three heads: 1. The formation of constitutions without the previous assent of Congress: and this was applicable to both States. 2. The right of aliens to vote before naturalization. 3. The right of Arkansas to be admitted with slavery by virtue of the rights of a State, – by virtue of the third article of the treaty which ceded Louisiana to the United States – and by virtue of the Missouri compromise. On these points, Mr. Hamer, of Ohio, spoke thus:

"One of the principal objections urged against their admission at this time is, that their proceedings have been lawless and revolutionary; and that, for the example's sake, if for no other reason, we should reject their application, and force them to go back and do all their work over again. I cannot assent to this proposition. Two ways are open to every territory that desires to emerge from its dependent condition and become a State. It may either petition Congress for leave to form a State constitution, and, when that permission is given, proceed to form it, and present the new State constitution for our approbation; or they may meet, in the first instance, form the constitution, and offer it for our approval. There is no impropriety in either mode. It is optional with Congress, at last, to admit the State or not, as may be thought expedient. If they wish to admit her, they can do it by two acts of Congress; one to authorize the formation of a constitution, and the other to approve of it when made; or by one act allowing the prayer of the petitioners to become a State, and approving of their constitution at the same time. This latter course is the one adopted in the present case. There is nothing disrespectful in it. Indeed, there is much to justify the Territory in its proceeding. Year after year they petitioned for leave to form a constitution, and it was refused, or their application was treated with neglect. Wearied with repeated instances of this treatment, they have formed a constitution, brought it to us, and asked us to sanction it, and admit them into the Union. We have the authority to do this; and if their constitution is republican, we ought to do it. There is no weight in this objection, and I will dismiss it without further remark. Another objection is, that aliens have aided in making this constitution, and are allowed the right of suffrage in all elections by the provisions it contains. As to the first point, it is sufficient to say that all the new States northwest of the Ohio formed their constitutions precisely in the same way. The ordinance of 1787 does not require sixty thousand citizens of the United States to be resident within the limits of a new State, in order to authorize a constitution and admission into the Union. It requires that number of 'free inhabitants;' and the alien who resides there, if he be a 'free inhabitant,' is entitled to vote in the election of delegates to the convention; and afterwards in deciding whether the people will accept the constitution formed by their convention. Such has been the construction and practice in all the country north of the Ohio; and as the last census shows that there are but a few hundreds of aliens in Michigan, it would be hard to set aside their constitution, because some of these may have participated in its formation. It would be unjust to do so, if we had the power; but we have no authority to do it; for if we regard the ordinance as of any validity, it allows all 'free inhabitants' to vote in framing the State governments which are to be created within the sphere of its influence. We will now turn to the remaining point in this objection, and we shall see that it has no more force in it than the other.

"The constitution allows all white male citizens over twenty-one years of age, having resided six months in Michigan, to vote at all elections; and every white male inhabitant residing in the State at the time of signing the constitution is allowed the same privilege. These provisions undoubtedly confer on aliens the right of suffrage; and it is contended that they are in violation of the constitution of the United States. That instrument declares that 'new States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;' that 'the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government;' and that 'the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.' The ordinance of 1787 provides that the constitution to be formed northwest of the Ohio 'shall be republican.'

"It is an error not very uncommon to suppose that the right of suffrage is inseparably connected with the privilege of citizenship. A slight investigation of the subject will prove that this is not so. The privileges are totally distinct. A State cannot make an American citizen who, under the constitution of the United States shall be entitled to the rights of citizenship throughout the Union. The power belongs to the federal government. We pass all the naturalization laws, by which aliens are transformed into citizens. We do so under the constitution of the United States, conceding to us this authority. But, on the other hand, we have no control over the right of suffrage in the different States. That belongs exclusively to State legislation and State authority. It varies in almost all the States; and yet who ever supposed that Congress could interfere to change the rules adopted by the people in regard to it? No one, I presume. Why then attempt to control it here? Other States have adopted the same provisions. Look at the constitutions of Ohio and other new States, and you will find that they require residence only, and not citizenship, to enable a man to vote. Each State can confer this right upon all persons within her limits. It gives them no rights beyond the limits of the State. It cannot make them citizens, for that would violate the naturalization laws; or, rather, it would render them nugatory. It cannot give them a right to vote in any other State, for that would infringe upon the authority of such State to regulate its own affairs. It simply confers the right of aiding in the choice of public officers whilst the alien remains in the State; it does not make him a citizen; nor is it of the slightest advantage to him beyond the boundaries of Michigan."

Mr. Hamer concluded his remarks with a feeling allusion to the distractions which had prevailed during the Missouri controversy, a congratulation upon their disappearance under the Missouri compromise and an earnest exhortation to harmony and the preservation of good feeling in the speedy admission of the two States; and said:

"We can put an end to a most distracting contest, that has agitated our country from Maine to Georgia, and from the Atlantic to the most remote settlement upon the frontier. There was a time when the most painful anxiety pervaded the whole nation; and whilst each one waited with feverish impatience for further intelligence from the disputed territory, he trembled lest the ensuing mail should bear the disastrous tidings of a civil strife in which brother had fallen by the hand of brother, and the soil of freedom had been stained by the blood of her own sons. But the storm has passed. The usual good fortune of the American people has prevailed. The land heaves in view, and a haven, with its wide-spread arms, invites us to enter. After so long an exposure to the fury of a tempest that was apparently gathering in our political horizon, let us seize the first opportunity to steer the ship into a safe harbor, far beyond the reach of that elemental war that threatened her security in the open sea. Let us pass this bill. It does justice to all. It conciliates all. Its provisions will carry peace and harmony to those who are now agitated by strife, and disquieted by tumults and disorders. By this just, humane, and beneficent policy, we shall consolidate our liberties, and make this government what Mr. Jefferson, more than thirty years ago, declared it to be, 'the strongest government on earth; the only one where every man, at the call of the law, will fly to the standard of the law, and meet invasions of the public order as his own personal concern.' With this policy on the part of the government, and the spirit of patriotism that now animates our citizens in full vigor, united America may bid defiance to a world in arms; and should Providence continue to smile upon our country, we may confidently anticipate that the freedom, the happiness, and the prosperity, which we now enjoy, will be as perpetual as the lofty mountains that crown our continent, or the noble rivers that fertilize our plains."

Mr. Adams commenced a speech in Committee of the Whole, which was finished in the House, and being prepared for publication by himself, and therefore free from error, is here given – all the main parts of it – to show his real position on the slavery question, so much misunderstood at the time on account of his tenacious adherence to the right of petition. He said:

"I cannot, consistently with my sense of my obligations as a citizen of the United States, and bound by oath to support their constitution, I cannot object to the admission of Arkansas into the Union as a slave State; I cannot propose or agree to make it a condition of her admission, that a convention of her people shall expunge this article from her constitution. She is entitled to admission as a slave State, as Louisiana and Mississippi, and Alabama, and Missouri, have been admitted, by virtue of that article in the treaty for the acquisition of Louisiana, which secures to the inhabitants of the ceded territories all the rights, privileges, and immunities, of the original citizens of the United States; and stipulates for their admission, conformably to that principle, into the Union. Louisiana was purchased as a country wherein slavery was the established law of the land. As Congress have not power in time of peace to abolish slavery in the original States of the Union, they are equally destitute of the power in those parts of the territory ceded by France to the United States by the name of Louisiana, where slavery existed at the time of the acquisition. Slavery is in this Union the subject of internal legislation in the States, and in peace is cognizable by Congress only, as it is tacitly tolerated and protected where it exists by the constitution of the United States, and as it mingles in their intercourse with other nations. Arkansas, therefore, comes, and has the right to come into the Union with her slaves and her slave laws. It is written in the bond, and, however I may lament that it ever was so written, I must faithfully perform its obligations. I am content to receive her as one of the slave-holding States of this Union; but I am unwilling that Congress, in accepting her constitution, should even lie under the imputation of assenting to an article in the constitution of a State which withholds from its legislature the power of giving freedom to the slave. Upon this topic I will not enlarge. Were I disposed so to do, twenty hours of continuous session have too much exhausted my own physical strength, and the faculties as well as the indulgence of those who might incline to hear me, for me to trespass longer upon their patience. When the bill shall be reported to the House, I may, perhaps, again ask to be heard, upon renewing there, as I intend, the motion for this amendment."

After a session of twenty-five hours, including the whole night, the committee rose and reported the two bills to the House. Of the arduousness of this session, which began at ten in the morning of Thursday, and was continued until eleven o'clock the next morning, Mr. Adams, who remained at his post the whole time, gave this account in a subsequent notice of the sitting:

"On Thursday, the 9th of June, the House went into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union upon two bills; one to fix the Northern boundary of the State of Ohio, and for the conditional admission of the State of Michigan into the Union; and the other for the admission of the State of Arkansas into the Union. The bill for fixing the Northern boundary of the State of Ohio, and the conditional admission of Michigan into the Union, was first taken up for consideration, and gave rise to debates which continued till near one o'clock of the morning of Friday, the 10th of June: repeated motions to adjourn had been made and rejected. The committee had twice found itself without a quorum, and had been thereby compelled to rise, and report the fact to the House. In the first instance there had been found within private calling distance a sufficient number of members, who, though absent from their duty of attendance upon the House, were upon the alert to appear and answer to their names to make a quorum to vote against adjourning, and then to retire again to their amusement or repose. Upon the first restoration of the quorum by this operation, the delegate from Arkansas said that if the committee would only take up and read the bill, he would not urge any discussion upon it then, and would consent to the committee's rising, and resuming the subject at the next sitting of the House. The bill was accordingly read; a motion was then made for the committee to rise, and rejected; an amendment to the bill was moved, on taking the question upon which there was no quorum. The usual expedient of private call to straggling members was found ineffectual. A call of the House was ordered, at one o'clock in the morning. This operation to be carried through all its stages, must necessarily consume about three hours of time, during which the House can do no other business. Upon this call, after the names of all the members had been twice called over, and all the absentees for whom any valid or plausible excuse was offered had been excused, there remained eighty-one names of members, who, by the rules of the House, were to be taken into custody as they should appear, or were to be sent for, and taken into custody wherever they might be found, by special messengers appointed for that purpose. At this hour of the night the city of Washington was ransacked by these special messengers, and the members of the House were summoned from their beds to be brought in custody of these special messengers, before the House, to answer for their absence. After hearing the excuses of two of these members, and the acknowledged no good reason of a third, they were all excused in a mass, without payment of fees; which fees, to the amount of two or three hundred dollars, have of course become a charge upon the people, and to be paid with their money. By this operation, between four and five o'clock of the morning, a small quorum of the House was obtained, and, without any vote of the House, the speaker left the chair, which was resumed by the chairman of the Committee of the Whole."

Mr. Adams resumed his seat, and Mr. Wise addressed the committee, particularly in reply to Mr. Cushing. Confusion, noise and disorder became great in the Hall. Several members spoke; and cries of "order," and "question" were frequent. Personal reflections passed, and an affair of honor followed between two Southern members, happily adjusted without bloodshed. The chairman, Mr. Speight, by great exertions, had procured attention to Mr. Hoar, of Massachusetts. Afterwards Mr. Adams again addressed the committee. Mr. Wise inquired of him whether in his own opinion, if his amendment should be adopted, the State of Arkansas would, by this bill, be admitted? Mr. Adams answered – "Certainly, sir. There is not in my amendment the shadow of a restriction proposed upon the State. It leaves the State, like all the rest, to regulate the subject of slavery within herself by her own laws." The motion of Mr. Adams was rejected, only thirty-two members voting for it; being not one third of the members from the non-slaveholding States.

The vote was taken on the Michigan bill first, and was ordered to a third reading by a vote of 153 to 45. The nays were:

"Messrs. John Quincy Adams, Heman Allen, Jeremiah Bailey, John Bell, George N. Briggs, William B. Calhoun, George Chambers, John Chambers, Timothy Childs, William Clark, Horace Everett, William J. Graves, George Grennell, jr., John K. Griffin, Hiland Hall, Gideon Hard, Benjamin Hardin, James Harper, Abner Hazeltine, Samuel Hoar, Joseph R. Ingersoll, Daniel Jenifer, Abbott Lawrence, Levi Lincoln, Thomas C. Love, Samson Mason, Jonathan McCarty, Thomas M. T. McKennan, Charles F. Mercer, John J. Milligan, Mathias Morris, James Parker, James A. Pearce, Stephen C. Phillips, David Potts, jr., John Reed, John Robertson, David Russell, William Slade, John N. Steele, John Taliaferro, Joseph R. Underwood, Lewis Williams, Sherrod Williams, Henry A. Wise."

It is remarkable that this list of nays begins with Mr. Adams, and ends with Mr. Wise – a proof that all the negative votes, were not given upon the same reasons.

The vote was immediately after taken on ordering to a third reading the bill for the admission of the State of Arkansas; which was so ordered by a vote of 143 to 50. The nays were:

"Messrs. John Quincy Adams, Heman Allen, Joseph B. Anthony, Jeremiah Bailey, William K. Bond, Nathaniel E. Borden, George N. Briggs, William B. Calhoun, Timothy Childs, William Clark, Joseph H. Crane, Caleb Cushing, Edward Darlington, Harmer Denny, George Evans, Horace Everett, Philo C. Fuller, George Grennell, jr., Hiland Hall, Gideon Hard, James Harper, Abner Hazeltine, Joseph Henderson, William Hiester, Samuel Hoar, William Jackson, Henry F. Janes, Benjamin Jones, John Laporte, Abbott Lawrence, George W. Lay, Levi Lincoln, Thomas C. Love, Samson Mason, Jonathan McCarthy, Thomas M. T. McKennan, Mathias Morris, James Parker, Dutee J. Pearce, Stephen C. Phillips, David Potts, jr., John Reed, David Russell, William N. Shinn, William Slade, John Thomson, Joseph R. Underwood, Samuel F. Vinton, Elisha Whittlesey, Lewis Williams."

Here again the beginning and the ending of the list of voters is remarkable, beginning again with Mr. Adams, and terminating with Mr. Lewis Williams, of North Carolina – two gentlemen wide apart in their political courses, and certainly voting on this occasion on different principles.

From the meagreness of these negative votes, it is evident that the struggle was, not to pass the two bills, but to bring them to a vote. This was the secret of the arduous session of twenty-five hours in the House. Besides the public objections which clogged their admission – boundaries in one, slavery in the other, alien voting, and (what was deemed by some), revolutionary conduct in both in holding conventions without authority of Congress; besides these public reasons, there was another cause operating silently, and which went more to the postponement than to the rejection of the States. This cause was political and partisan, and grew out of the impending presidential election, to be held before Congress should meet again. Mr. Van Buren was the democratic candidate; General William Henry Harrison was the candidate of the opposition; and Mr. Hugh L. White, of Tennessee, was brought forward by a fraction which divided from the democratic party. The new States, it was known, would vote, if now admitted, for Mr. Van Buren; and this furnished a reason to the friends of the other candidates (even those friendly to eventual admission, and on which some of them were believed to act), to wish to stave off the admission to the ensuing session. – The actual negative vote to the admission of each State, was not only small, but nearly the same in number, and mixed both as to political parties and sectional localities; so as to exclude the idea of any regular or considerable opposition to Arkansas as a slave State. The vote which would come nearest to referring itself to that cause was the one on Mr. Adams' proposed amendment to the State constitution; and there the whole vote amounted only to 32; and of the sentiments of the greater part of these, including Mr. Adams himself, the speech of that gentleman must be considered the authentic exponent; and will refer their opposition, not to any objection to the admission of the State as slave-holding, but to an unwillingness to appear upon the record as assenting to a constitution which forbid emancipation, and made slavery perpetual. The number actually voting to reject the State, and keep her out of the Union, because she admitted slavery, must have been quite small – not more in proportion, probably, than what it was in the Senate.

CHAPTER CXXXIX.

ATTEMPTED INQUIRY INTO THE MILITARY ACADEMY

This institution, soon after its organization under the act of 1812, began to attract public attention, as an establishment unfriendly to the rights of the people, of questionable constitutionality, as being for the benefit of the rich and influential; and as costing an enormous sum for each officer obtained from it for actual service. Movements against it were soon commenced in Congress, and for some years perseveringly continued, principally under the lead of Mr. Newton Cannon, and Mr. John Cooke, representatives from the State of Tennessee. Their speeches and statements made considerable impression upon the public mind, but very little upon Congress, where no amelioration of any kind could be obtained, either in the organization of the institution, or in the practical administration which had grown up under it. In the session of 1834-'35 these efforts were renewed, chiefly induced by Mr. Albert Gallatin Hawes, representative from Kentucky, who moved for, and attained the appointment of a committee of twenty-four, one from each State; which made a report, for which no consideration could be procured – not even the printing of the report. Baffled in their attempts to get at their object in the usual forms of legislation, the members opposed to the institution resorted to the extraordinary mode of attacking its existence in an appropriation bill: that is to say, resisting appropriations for its support – a mode of proceeding entirely hopeless of success, but justifiable, as they believed, under the circumstances; and at all events as giving them an opportunity to get their objections before the public.

It was at the session of 1835-'36, that this form of opposition took its most determined course; and some brief notices of what was said then may still be of service in awakening a spirit of inquiry in the country, and promoting investigations which have so long been requested and denied. But it was not until after another attempt had failed to do any thing through a committee at this session also, that the ultimate resource of an attack upon the appropriation for the support of the institution was resorted to. Early in the session Mr. Hawes offered this resolution: "That a select committee of nine be appointed to inquire into what amendments, if any, are expedient to be made to the laws relating to the military Academy at West Point, in the State of New-York; and also into the expediency of modifying the organization of said institution; and also whether it would not comport with the public interest to abolish the same: with power in the committee to report by bill or otherwise." Mr. Hawes, in support of his motion reminded the House of the appointment of the committee of the last session, of its report, and his inability to obtain action upon it, or to procure an order for its printing. The resolution which he now submitted varied but in one particular from that which he had offered the year before, and that was in the reduced number of the committee asked for. Twenty-four was a larger number than could be induced to enter into any extended or patient investigation; and he now proposed a committee of nine only. His resolution was only one of inquiry, to obtain a report for the information of the people, and the action of the House – a species of resolution usually granted as a matter of course; and he hoped there would be no objection to his motion. Mr. Wardwell, of New-York, objected to the appointment of a select committee, and thought the inquiry ought to go to the standing committee on military affairs. Mr. F. O. J. Smith, of Maine, wished to hear some reason assigned for this motion. It seemed to him that a special committee ought to be raised; but if the friends of the institution were fearful of a select committee, and would assign that fear as a motive for preferring the standing committee, he would withdraw his objection. Mr. Briggs, of Massachusetts, believed the subject was already referred to the military committee in the general reference to that committee of all that related in the President's message to this Academy; and so believing, he made it a point of order for the Speaker to decide, whether the motion of Mr. Hawes could be entertained. The Speaker, Mr. Polk, said that the motion was one of inquiry; and he considered the reference of the President's message as not applying to the case. Mr. Briggs adhered to his belief that the subject ought to go to a standing committee. The committee had made an elaborate report at the last session, which was now on the files of the House; and if gentlemen wished information from it, they could order it to be printed. Mr. John Reynolds, of Illinois, said it was astonishing that members of this House, friends of this institution, were so strenuous in their opposition to investigation. If it was an institution founded on a proper basis, and conducted on proper and republican principles, they had nothing to fear from investigation; if otherwise the people had; and the great dread of investigation portended something wrong. His constituents were dissatisfied with this Academy, and expected him to represent them fairly in doing his part to reform, or to abolish it; and he should not disappoint them. The member from Massachusetts, Mr. Briggs, he said, had endeavored to stifle this inquiry, by making it a point of order to be decided by the Speaker; which augured badly for the integrity of the institution. Failing in that attempt to stifle inquiry, he had joined the member from New-York, Mr. Wardwell, in the attempt to send it to a committee where no inquiry would be made, and in violation of parliamentary practice. He, Mr. Reynolds, had great respect for the members of the military committee; but some of them, and perhaps all, had expressed an opinion in favor of the institution. Neither the chairman, nor any member of the committee had asked for this inquiry; it was the law of parliament, and also of reason and common sense, that all inquiries should go to committees disposed to make them; and it was without precedent or justification, and injurious to the fair conducting of business, to take an inquiry out of the hands of a member that moves it, and is responsible for its adequate prosecution, and refer it to a committee that is against it, or indifferent to it. When a member gets up, and moves an inquiry touching any branch of the public service, or the official conduct of any officer, he incurs a responsibility to the moral sense of the House and of the country. He assumes that there is something wrong – that he can find it out if he has a chance; and he is entitled to a chance, both for his own sake and the country; and not only to have his committee, but to be its chairman, and to have a majority of the members favorable to its object. If it were otherwise members would have but poor encouragement to move inquiries for the public service. Cut off himself from the performance of his work, an indifferent or prejudiced committee may neglect inquiry, or pervert it into defence; and subject the mover to the imputation of preferring false and frivolous motions; and so discredit him, while injuring the public, and sheltering abuse. Under a just report he believed the Academy would wither and die. Under its present organization it is a monopoly for the gratuitous education of the sons and connections of the rich and influential – to be afterwards preferred for army appointments, or even for civil appointments; and to be always provided for as the children of the government, getting not only gratuitous education, but a preference in appointments. A private soldier, though a young David, slaying Goliath, could get no appointment in our army. He must stand back for a West-Pointer, even the most inefficient, who through favor, or driving, had gone through his course and got his diploma. Promotion was the stimulus and the reward to merit. We, members of Congress, rise from the ranks of the people when we come here, and have to depend upon merit to get here. Why not let the same rule apply in the army, and give a chance to merit there, instead of giving all the offices to those who may have no turn for war, who only want support, and get it by public patronage, and favor, because they have official friends or parents? The report made at the last session looks bad for the Academy. Let any one read it, and he will feel that there is something wrong. If the friends of the institution would suffer that report to be printed, and let it go to the people, it would be a great satisfaction. Mr. Wardwell said the last Congress had refused to print the report; and asked why it was that these complaints against the Academy came from the West? Was it because the Western engineers wanted the employment on the roads and bridges in place of the regular officers. Mr. Hannegan, of Indiana, said he was a member of the military committee which made the report at the last session, and which Mr. Wardwell had reminded them the House refused to order to be printed. And why that refusal? Because the friends of the Academy took post behind the two-thirds rule; and the order for printing could not be obtained because two-thirds of the House could not be got to suspend the rule, even for one hour, and that the morning hour. The friends of the Academy rallied, he said, to prevent the suspension of the rule, and to prevent publicity to the report. Mr. Hamer, of Ohio, said, why oppose this inquiry? The people desire it. A large portion of them believed the Academy to be an aristocratical institution, which ought to be abolished; others believe it to be republican, and that it ought to be cherished. Then why not inquire, and find out which is right, and legislate accordingly? Mr. Abijah Mann, of New-York, said there was a considerable interest in the States surrounding this institution, and he had seen a strong disposition in the members coming from those States to defend it against all charges. He was a member of the committee of twenty-four at the last session, and concurred partially in the report which was made, which was, to say the least of it, an elaborate examination of the institution from its foundation. He knew that in doing so he had incurred some censure from a part of his own State; but he never had flinched, and never would flinch, from the performance of any duty here which he felt it incumbent upon him to discharge. He had found much to censure, and believed if the friends of the institution would take the trouble to investigate it as the committee of twenty-four had done, they would find more to censure in the principle of the establishment than they were aware of. There were abuses in this institution, developed in that report, of a character that would not find, he presumed, a single advocate upon that floor when they came to be published. He believed the principle of the institution was utterly inconsistent with the principle of all other institutions; but he was not for exterminating it. Reformation was his object. It was the only avenue by which the people of the country could approach the offices of the army – the only gateway by which they could be reached. The principle was wrong, and the practice bad. We saw individuals continually pressing the government for admission into this institution, to be educated professedly for the military service, but very frequently, and too generally with the secret design in their hearts to devote themselves to the civil pursuits of society; and this was a fraud upon the government, and a poor way for the future officer to begin his educational life. When the report of the twenty-four came to be printed, as he hoped it would, it would be seen that this institution cost the government by far too much for the education of these young men. Whether it sprung from abuse or not, such was the fact when they looked at utility connected with the expenditure. If he recollected the report aright it proved that not more than two out of five who entered the institution remained there long enough to graduate; and not two more out of five graduates who entered the army. If his memory served him right the report would show that every graduate coming from that institution in the last ten years, had cost the United States more than five thousand dollars; and previously a much larger sum; and he believed within one year the graduates had cost upwards of thirty thousand dollars. If there be any truth in these statements the institution must be mismanaged, or misconducted, and ought to be thoroughly investigated and reformed. And he appealed to the friends of the Academy to withdraw their opposition, and suffer the report to be printed, and the select committee to be raised; but he appealed in vain. The opposition was kept up, and the two-thirds rule again resorted to, and effectually used to balk the friends of inquiry. It was after this second failure to get at the subject regularly through a committee, and a published report, that the friends of inquiry resorted to the last alternative – that of an attack upon the appropriation. The opportunity for this was not presented until near the end of the session, when Mr. Franklin Pierce, of New Hampshire, delivered a well-considered and well-reasoned speech against the institution, bottomed on facts, and sustained by conclusions, in the highest degree condemnatory of the Academy; and which will be given in the next chapter.

CHAPTER CXL.

MILITARY ACADEMY – SPEECH OF MR. PIERCE

"Mr. Chairman: – An attempt was made during the last Congress to bring the subject of the reorganization of the Military Academy before the country, through a report of a committee. The same thing has been done during the present session, again and again, but all efforts have proved alike unsuccessful! Still, you do not cease to call for appropriations; you require the people's money for the support of the institution, while you refuse them the light necessary to enable them to judge of the propriety of your annual requisitions. Whether the amount proposed to be appropriated, by the bill upon your table, is too great or too small, or precisely sufficient to cover the current expenses of the institution, is a matter into which I will not at present inquire; but I shall feel bound to oppose the bill in every stage of its progress. I cannot vote a single dollar until the resolution of inquiry, presented by my friend from Kentucky (Mr. Hawes), at an early day in the session, shall be first taken up and disposed of. I am aware, sir, that it will be said, because I have heard the same declaration on a former occasion, that this is not the proper time to discuss the merits of the institution; that the bill is to make provision for expenses already incurred in part; and whatever opinions may be entertained upon the necessity of a reorganization, the appropriation must be made. I say to gentlemen who are opposed to the principles of the institution, and to those who believe that abuses exist, which ought to be exposed and corrected, that now is their only time, and this the only opportunity, during the present session, to attain their object, and I trust they will steadily resist the bill until its friends shall find it necessary to take up the resolution of inquiry, and give it its proper reference.

"Sir, why has this investigation been resisted? Is it not an institution which has already cost this country more than three millions of dollars, for which you propose, in this very bill, an appropriation of more than one hundred and thirty thousand dollars, and which, at the same time, in the estimation of a large portion of the citizens of this Union, has failed, eminently failed, to fulfil the objects for which it was established, of sufficient interest and importance to claim the consideration of a committee of this House, and of the House itself? I should have expected the resolution of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Hawes), merely proposing an inquiry, to pass without opposition, had I not witnessed the strong sensation, nay, excitement, that was produced here, at the last session, by the presentation of his yet unpublished report. Sir, if you would have an exhibition of highly excited feeling, it requires little observation to learn that you may produce it at any moment by attacking such laws as confer exclusive and gratuitous privileges. The adoption of the resolution of inquiry, at the last session of Congress, and the appointment of a select committee under it, were made occasion of newspaper paragraphs, which, in tone of lamentation and direful prediction, rivalled the most highly wrought specimens of the panic era. One of those articles I have preserved, and have before me. It commences thus: 'The architects of ruin.– This name has been appropriately given to those who are leading on the base, the ignorant, and the unprincipled, in a remorseless war upon all the guards and defences of society.'

"I introduce it here merely to show what are, in certain quarters, considered the guards and defences of society. After various compliments, similar to that just cited, the article proceeds: 'All this is dangerous as novel, and the ultimate results cannot be contemplated without anxiety. If this spirit extends, who can check it? "Down with the Bank;" "down with the Military Academy;" "down with the Judiciary;" "down with the Senate;" will be followed by watchwords of a worse character.' Here, Mr. Chairman, you have the United States Bank first, and then the Military Academy, as the guards and defences of your country. If it be so, you are, indeed, feebly protected. One of these guards and defences is already tottering. And who are the 'architects of ruin' that have resolved its downfall? Are they the base, the ignorant, and the unprincipled? No, sir. The most pure and patriotic portion of your community: the staid, industrious, intelligent farmers and mechanics, through a public servant, who has met responsibilities and seconded their wishes, with equal intrepidity and success, in the camp and in the cabinet, have accomplished this great work. Mr. Chairman, there is no real danger to be apprehended from this much-dreaded levelling principle.

"From the middling interest you have derived your most able and efficient support in the most gloomy and trying periods of your history. And what have they asked in return? Nothing but the common advantages and blessings of a free government, administered under equal and impartial laws. They are responsible for no portion of your legislation, which, through its partial and unjust operation, has shaken this Union to its centre. That has had its origin in a different quarter, sustained by wealth, the wealth of monopolies, and the power and influence which wealth, thus accumulated and disposed, never fails to control. Indeed, sir, while far from demanding at your hands special favors for themselves, they have not, in my judgment, been sufficiently jealous of all legislation conferring exclusive and gratuitous privileges.

"That the law creating the institution, of which I am now speaking, and the practice under it, is strongly marked by both these characteristics, is apparent at a single glance. It is gratuitous, because those who are so fortunate as to obtain admission there, receive their education without any obligation, except such as a sense of honor may impose, to return, either by service or otherwise, the slightest equivalent. It is exclusive, inasmuch as only one youth, out of a population of more than 47,000, can participate in its advantages at the same time; and those who are successful are admitted at an age, when their characters cannot have become developed, and with very little knowledge of their adaptation, mental or physical, for military life. The system disregards one of those great principles which, carried into practice, contributed, perhaps, more than any other to render the arms of Napoleon invincible for so many years. Who does not perceive that it destroys the very life and spring of military ardor and enthusiasm, by utterly foreclosing all hope of promotion to the soldier and non-commissioned officer? However meritorious may be his services, however pre-eminent may become his qualifications for command, all is unavailing. The portcullis is dropped between him and preferment; the wisdom of your laws having provided another criterion than that of admitted courage and conduct, by which to determine who are worthy of command. They have made an Academy, where a certain number of young gentlemen are educated annually at the public expense, and to which there is, of consequence, a general rush, not so much from sentiments of patriotism and a taste for military life, as from motives less worthy – the avenue, and the only avenue, to rank in your army. These are truths. Mr. Chairman, which no man will pretend to deny; and I leave it for this House and the nation to determine whether they do not exhibit a spirit of exclusiveness, alike at variance with the genius of your government, and the efficiency and chivalrous character of your military force.

"Sir, no man can feel more deeply interested in the army, or entertain a higher regard for it, than myself. My earliest recollections connect themselves fondly and gratefully with the names of the brave men who, relinquishing the quiet and security of civil life, were staking their all upon the defence of their country's rights and honor. One of the most distinguished among that noble band now occupies and honors a seat upon this floor. It is not fit that I should indulge in expressions of personal respect and admiration, which I am sure would find a hearty response in the bosom of every member of this committee. I allude to him merely to express the hope that, on some occasion, we may have, upon this subject, the benefit of his experience and observation. And if his opinions shall differ from my own, I promise carefully to review every step by which I have been led to my present conclusions. You cannot mistake me, sir; I refer to the hero of Erie. I have declared myself the friend of the army. Satisfy me, then, what measures are best calculated to render it effective and what all desire it to be, and I go for the proposition with my whole heart.

"But I cannot believe that the Military Academy, as at present organized, is calculated to accomplish this desirable end. It may, and undoubtedly does, send forth into the country much military knowledge; but the advantage which your army, or that which will constitute your army in time of need, derives from it, is by no means commensurate with the expense you incur. Here, Mr. Chairman, permit me to say that I deny, utterly, the expediency, and the right to educate, at the public expense, any number of young men who, on the completion of their education, are not to form a portion of your military force, but to return to the walks of private life. Such was never the operation of the Military Academy, until after the law of 1812; and the doctrine, so far as I have been able to ascertain, was first formally announced by a distinguished individual, at this time sufficiently jealous of the exercise of executive patronage, and greatly alarmed by what he conceives to be the tendencies of this government to centralism and consolidation. It may be found in the report of the Secretary of War, communicated to Congress in 1819.

"If it shall, upon due consideration, receive the sanction of Congress and the country, I can see no limit to the exercise of power and government patronage. Follow out the principle, and where will it lead you? You confer upon the national government the absolute guardianship of literature and science, military and civil; you need not stop at military science; any one, in the wide range of sciences, becomes at once a legitimate and constitutional object of your patronage; you are confined by no limit but your discretion; you have no check but your own good pleasure. If you may afford instruction, at the public expense, in the languages, in philosophy, in chemistry, and in the exact sciences, to young gentlemen who are under no obligation to enter the service of their country, but are, in fact, destined for civil life, why may you not, by parity of reasoning, provide the means of a legal, or theological, or medical education, on the ground that the recipients of your bounty will carry forth a fund of useful knowledge, that may, at some time, under some circumstances, produce a beneficial influence, and promote 'the general welfare?' Sir, I fear that even some of us may live to see the day when this 'general welfare' of your constitution will leave us little ground to boast of a government of limited powers. But I did not propose at this time to discuss the abstract question of constitutional right. I will regard the expediency alone; and, whether the power exist or not, its exercise, in an institution like this, is subversive of the only principle upon which a school, conducted at the public expense, can be made profitable to the public service – that of making an admission into your school, and an education there, secondary to an appointment in the army. Sir, this distinctive feature characterized all your legislation, and all executive recommendations, down to 1810.

"I may as well notice here, as at any time, an answer which has always been ready when objections have been raised to this institution – an answer which, if it has not proved quite satisfactory to minds that yield their assent more readily to strong reasons than to the authority of great names, has yet, unquestionably, exercised a powerful influence upon the public mind. It has not gone forth upon the authority of an individual merely, but has been published to the world with the approbation of a committee of a former Congress. It is this: that the institution has received, at different times, the sanction of such names as Washington, Adams, and Jefferson; and this has been claimed with such boldness, and in a form so imposing, as almost to forbid any question of its accuracy. If this were correct, in point of fact, it would be entitled to the most profound respect and consideration, and no change should be urged against the weight of such authority, without mature deliberation, and thorough conviction of, expediency. Unfortunately for the advocates of the institution, and fortunately for the interests of the country, this claim cannot be sustained by reference to executive documents, from the first report of General Knox, in 1790, to the close of Mr. Jefferson's administration.

"The error has undoubtedly innocently occurred, by confounding the Military Academy at West Point as it was, with the Military Academy at West Point as it is. The report of Secretary Knox, just referred to, is characterized by this distinctive feature – that the corps proposed to be organized were 'to serve as an actual defence to the community,' and to constitute a part of the active military force of the country, 'to serve in the field, or on the frontier, or in the fortifications of the sea-coast, as the commander-in-chief may direct.' At a later period, the report of the Secretary of War (Mr. McHenry), communicated to Congress in 1800 although it proposed a plan for military schools, differing in many essential particulars from those which had preceded it, still retained the distinctive feature just named as characterizing the report of General Knox.

"With regard to educating young men gratuitously, which, whatever may have been the design, I am prepared to show is the practical operation of the Academy, as at present organized, I cannot, perhaps, exhibit more clearly the sentiments of the Executive at that early day, urgent as was the occasion, and strong as must have been the desire, to give strength and efficiency to the military force, than by reading one or two paragraphs from a supplementary report of Secretary McHenry, addressed to the chairman of the Committee of Defence, on the 31st January, 1800.

"The Secretary says: 'Agreeably to the plan of the Military Academy, the directors thereof are to be officers taken from the army; consequently, no expense will be incurred by such appointments. The plan also contemplates that officers of the army, cadets, and non-commissioned officers, shall receive instruction in the Academy. As the rations and fuel which they are entitled to in the army will suffice for them in the Academy, no additional expense will be required for objects of maintenance while there. The expenses of servants and certain incidental expenses relative to the police and administration, may be defrayed by those who shall be admitted, out of their pay and emoluments.'

"You will observe, Mr. Chairman, from the phraseology of the report, that all were to constitute a part of your actual military force; and that whatever additional charges should be incurred, were to be defrayed by those who might receive the advantages of instruction. These were provisions, just, as they are important. Let me call your attention for a moment to a report of Col. Williams, which was made the subject of a special message, communicated to Congress by Mr. Jefferson, on the 18th of March, 1808. The extract I propose to read, as sustaining fully the views of Mr. McHenry upon this point, is in the following words: 'It might be well to make the plan upon such a scale as not only to take in the minor officers of the navy, but also any youths from any of the States who might wish for such an education, whether designed for the army or navy, or neither, and let them be assessed to the value of their education, which might form a fund for extra or contingent expenses.' Sir, these are the true doctrines upon this subject; doctrines worthy of the administration under which they were promulgated, and in accordance with the views of statesmen in the earlier and purer days of the Republic. Give to the officers of your army the highest advantages for perfection in all the branches of military science, and let those advantages be open to all, in rotation, and under such terms and regulations as shall be at once impartial toward the officers and advantageous to the service; but let all young gentlemen who have a taste for military life, and desire to adopt arms as a profession, prepare themselves for subordinate situations at their own expense, or at the expense of their parents or guardians, in the same manner that the youth of the country are qualified for the professions of civil life. Sir, while upon this subject of gratuitous education, I will read an extract from 'Dupin's Military Force of Great Britain,' to show what favor it finds in another country, from the practice and experience of which we may derive some advantages, however far from approving of its institutions generally. The extract is from the 2d vol. 71st page, and relates to the terms on which young gentlemen are admitted to the junior departments of the Royal Military College at Sandhurst.

"First: The sons of officers of all ranks, whether of the land or sea forces, who have died in the service, leaving their families in pecuniary distress; this class are instructed, boarded, and habited gratuitously by the State; being required only to provide their equipments on admission, and to maintain themselves in linen. Secondly: The sons of all officers of the army above the rank of subalterns actually in the service, and who pay a sum proportioned to their ranks, according to a scale per annum regulated by the supreme board. The sons of living naval officers of rank not below that of master and commander, are also admitted on payment of annual stipends, similar to those of corresponding ranks in the army. The orphan sons of officers, who have not left their families in pecuniary difficulties, are admitted into this class on paying the stipends required of officers of the rank held by their parents at the time of their decease. Thirdly: The sons of noblemen and private gentlemen who pay a yearly sum equivalent to the expenses of their education, board, and clothing, according to a rate regulated from time to time by the commissioners.' Sir, let it be remembered that these are the regulations of a government which, with all its wealth and power, is, from its structure and practice, groaning under the accumulated weight of pensions, sinecures, and gratuities, and yet you observe, that only one class, 'the sons of officers of all ranks, whether of the land or sea forces, who have died in the service, leaving their families in pecuniary distress,' are educated gratuitously.