H. OF R.]

Reports of the Judiciary Committee.

[FEB. 9, 1831.

The

inferior courts established by Congress, and not the infe- that the lessons of prudence dictated to the framers of rior courts of the States. This doctrine, if successfully the constitution the importance of limiting its action, maintained, would prostrate every vestige of the sove- while they retained to the States all that was necessary to reignty of the States. Their ability to keep the General enable them to maintain their authority and independence. Government in the proper sphere of its action would be In the estimation of the States, their rights were not suftaken away, and the State Governments left at the mercy ficiently secured. Dissatisfaction arose on this subject of a splendid consolidated Government. This singular state among the people, and sundry amendments were proposed of things would exist; the Government intended as one of and adopted, which were the result of this dissatisfaction. Imited specific powers, would become one of general un-Two of them bear on the judiciary act under consideraImited authority, beyond the possibility of control. The tion. They are as follows: power of judging of its own authority, as well as that of "The powers not delegated to the United States by the the States, assumed and maintained. What other powers constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reare there in a Government which has any pretensions to served to the States respectively, or to the people." sovereignty? It should be borne in mind, that all Govern-"The judicial power of the United States shall not be ments are subordinate, and that they are only made sove-construed to extend to any suit, in law or equity, comreign by the sovereign will of those by whom they have menced or prosecuted against one of the United States, been established. In this point of view the General Go- or by a citizen or subject of any foreign State." These vernment is subordinate to the States; it is subject to their amendments were adopted long after the passage of the will and discretion. They can alter, change, or modify it. judiciary act of 1789, and show very clearly that they had The power of judging of the General Government, in a for their object this independence of the States. great measure, belongs to the State Governments, be-latter amendment appears, from the journals of Congress cause the Government was formed by the States in their and the message of the President, to have been finally Sovereign capacity. It is true, the General Government acted upon and adopted on the 8th of January, 1798. has the power of judging in certain matters submitted to These amendments, whatever doubts may have existed it by the forms of the constitution of the United States; before, must settle the question as to the unconstitutionality and this judgment is final and obligatory on the indivi-of the 25th section of the judiciary act. That provision duals concerned. For example, the President of the of the constitution is not perceived, which authorized United States has the authority to decide whether an indivi-Congress to pass an act permitting a writ of error to be dual convicted of a high crime by the judgment of a prosecuted from the State courts to the Supreme Court of court, should be pardoned or not. Here the judgment of the United States. I know, said Mr. D., that it has been the President should be final. Congress possesses the drawn from that part of the constitution which declares authority to decide whether they will pass a certain bill, that the constitution of the United States, the laws made and the President possesses the power of putting his veto in pursuance thereof, and treaties made by the authority on them after Congress has passed them. These are pro- of the United States, should be the supreme law of the per exercises of the respective authorities granted to Con- land. This, he said, was a declaration that the constitugress, and the Executive of the Union, by the States. tion, laws, and treaties of the United States, should be suThe judiciary of the United States has the authority to preme; and the courts of the United States, and also the decide on all cases submitted to it under the express pro- courts of the States, in their adjudications, should so convisions of the constitution of the United States, and by the sider them; but that it confers any jurisdiction on the laws made in pursuance thereof. The decisions are final, courts not previously given, is positively denied. It is and cannot be disturbed, because they are made under a true that the judicial power shall extend to all cases proper exercise of delegated powers. But suppose these arising under the constitution, the laws of the United different departments were to take upon themselves the States, &c.; but this can only be understood as applying exercise of authority not delegated by the constitution; to courts which were to be organized under the constitu where then is the rightful remedy? Who is to judge of tion, and not to the tribunals of the States. The judicial the infraction of the constitution? Those who have violat-power of the United States was not vested by the coned it? Or will you refer the matter back to the creating stitution in the State tribunals: it was vested in one supower, and let them decide whether the constitution has preme court, and in such inferior courts as Congress may, been violated or not? It is rare that a case of this charac- from time to time, ordain and establish. Did Congress ter will occur; but when it does, it is proper that the ordain and establish the supreme courts of the different principle should be applied. In the State Governments States? Or were they, by an act of the National Legisla the remedy is at hand, and the people are secure from ture, made inferior courts? or could they be so made by any injury that may result from a wanton violation of the any legislative act of the General Government? The suconstitution, by their frequent elections. Besides, the perior court of a State is as much supreme as the Supreme operations of the Government are under their immediate Court of the United States. Each acts independent of control. They pass judgment Instantly on the acts of the other; each has its limits assigned; and the one cantheir representatives, or those of the Executive, or the not coerce the other to the performance of its duty. The judiciary. The State Governments were created directly Supreme Court of the United States cannot compel the by the people, and all violations of the fundamental prin- tribunals of a State to respect its mandates. ciples of the Government are submitted to their decision. preme court, it is true, may, if it chooses, refuse to perThe General Government was formed by the States, and mit their clerk to certify their record to the Supreme should be subject to the same principles, and the same Court of the United States. A writ of error could not rules of interpretation. Mr. D. said that no Government then be prosecuted. These facts show how entirely fal nor individual could be sovereign, without the power of lacious is the idea that the supreme court of a State is judging and determining on its own acts. inferior, in relation to the Supreme Court of the United In relation to the State and General Governments, each States. The judges of a State are as competent to decide is sovereign and independent of the other; but not so in relation to the creative power. It is a solecism in politics, to maintain that a Government is independent of the power that creates it, or that the greatest despot on earth is independent of the people. To them Governments and despots owe their allegiance. The operations of the General Government are so far removed from the people,

The su

on the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States, as the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States. Those who do not admit that the State courts possess this qualification, must pay a poor compliment to the States, and the intellect of their judges, when they yield to the Congress of the United States the power to make the supreme court of a State an inferior tribunal. This exer

FEB. 9, 1831.]

petent or corrupt.

cise of power, if authorized by the constitution, would be question, the decisions of the State tribunals are adopted highly improper, and could only be resorted to on the as the rule of decision for the Supreme Court of the supposition that the judges of the State are either incom- United States. To this rule there has never been any complaint. It has, on the contrary, been approved by The minority of the committee have placed it on the the American people. The fears apprehended by the ground that the judges of a State are corrupt, and, there- minority vanish at the touch. The jealousy that the fore, are not to be trusted. They say that a State might States may pass laws to prevent the collection of the repass laws to prevent the collection of the revenue, or to venue, is idle and ridiculous. Do they know that the seize on the lands belonging to the United States; and Federal Court exercises the power of preventing any inthat the courts of the States would enforce those laws, re-terference by the States with the affairs that properly gardless of the oath taken to support the constitution of belong to the General Government, independent of the the United States. In that constitution, the laws and 25th section of the judiciary act? When the Legislature treaties of the United States are made the supreme law of Kentucky passed a law to tax the Bank of the United of the land, and the judges of the States are bound States, an injunction was granted and sustained by the thereby. Can it be supposed by any rational man, that Federal Court to prevent its operation, and the law dethe framers of the constitution ever contemplated an en-clared null and void. If the Legislature of any of the croachment on the sovereignty of the States, such as States should pass a law to punish an individual who takes would reduce them to mere petty corporations, or to per-upon himself the collection of the revenue, the courts petual inferiority, annihilating at once every vestige of would, on application, declare the law a nullity. This their sovereignty and independence? It is the opinion of power, although exercised by the court, Mr. D. said, was, some very distinguished men and jurists, that the judges in his judgment, a violation of the 11th amendment of the of the Supreme Court of the United States have no au- constitution of the United States. But this exercise of thority to declare the law of a State unconstitutional. power is not so alarming as the exercise of power by virThis duty was to be performed by the State tribunals; and tue of the 25th section, because it strikes directly at the the courts of the United States ought to take their deci-root of State sovereignty, and levels it with the dust. The sion as evidence of what the statute is, and its effects. If repeal of this section, however, was scarcely determined this course had been pursued, no collision would ever have on by the committee, before the majority was assailed in arisen between the State and federal authorities; but a all the forms of newspaper slang and virulence by the prosdifferent practice has prevailed, and collision after colli-tituted tools of the old federal party. The writing editor sion has been the result. In some instances, the Federal of the National Journal-the putrid offal of PiccadillyGovernment, the harmony of the country, has been shak-casts his mite of nauseous verbiage into the common en to its very centre by these collisions. Nearly every reservoir of slander. Mr. D. said he knew but little of State in the Union has had her sovereignty prostrated-the private history of this individual, nor was it neceshas been brought to bend beneath the feet of the federal sary in order to lead to a just estimate of his character. tribunal. It is time that the States should prepare for the His appearance is sufficient to condemn him. His face worst, and protect themselves against the assaults of this would accuse and convict him of the most infamous crime gigantic tribunal. It is useless to disguise the fact. The in the calendar, which involved only the meaner and more national tribunal, sustained and supported as it is, stops at grovelling passions of its committal. Even while he is nothing to obtain power. Its jurisdiction is daily increas-moving about, he is constantly casting about him a quick ing, and will continue to increase till the tribunals of the sinister glance of the eye, as if in expectation every moStates, and the States themselves, shall have been robbed ment of being arrested by the high constable of London, of all their original jurisdiction. Courts, at all times, and to make atonement for some felonious or burglarious ofin all countries, have sought to enlarge their jurisdiction, fence, that required not the exercise of manly courage, and have succeeded in the same proportion as the people but cunning and dexterity. Another worthy editor of have become supine and careless of their rights. In Eng- Virginia, distinguished only for the infamous notoriety of land, the court of king's bench, the court of common his crimes, through every stage of his existence, from the pleas, and the court of exchequer, were courts of limited puling days of his boyhood down to the present time, has jurisdiction; but they assumed one power after another, also made an attack upon the majority of the committee, and at last became courts of general jurisdiction. The and particularly on the individual who now addresses the same, perhaps, is going on with regard to the courts of Chair. To such worthy associates I will only say, "a vilthe United States; and, Mr. D. said, he would venture to lain's censure is extorted praise." All the opposition to predict that the same result would follow, unless Con- the repeal comes from a source where it might be exgress should aid in frowning down their usurpations; pected. It is of the same family as the alien and sedition which, he thought, from recent occurrences, was not laws. In order to render the measure odious or disrepulikely to happen. Opposition to the report is placed by table, it is designated nullification by some, and disunion the minority of the committee on another ground, equally by others. It is true, there is something in names; they flimsy and absurd. Law is a science, and he who is have some influence on the public mind. The term fede. schooled in it must, in his construction, either of the con- ralist was harmless in its origin, but, from a variety of cirstitution, of the treaties, or of the statutes of the United cumstances, which are not necessary to be related here, States, come to the same conclusion. It is admitted that it became exceedingly odious to the people; and the party the decisions of some of the courts may differ, either from to which it was attached has of late been endeavoring to ignorance or neglect; but this difference is not to be at- get rid of it as a cognomen likely to prove injur.ous to the tributed to the system. Under the 25th section, the de- success of their political aspirations. They have been cisions may now be different: for example, if the State exerting their ingenuity in order to barter it off for a new court sustain the law of the United States, no writ of name-national republican. Nullification has been aterror can be prosecuted; but if it should decide against tached to the South, because certain politicians believe its validity, a writ of error may be prosecuted to reverse they can deceive the people by the use of the term. Those or affirm that decision. If the opinion should be affirmed, who believe so, calculate too largely on the ignorance of no uniformity will exist in the courts. Uniformity does the public. The people of this country are too intelligent not even now exist in the courts of the United States. to be led off by such a shallow artifice. They are not to Where suits are brought in those courts by citizens of be alarmed by a raw-head and bloody-bones conjured up d fferent States, and where the validity of treaties, laws, by those who have been at all times the enemies of equal and the constitution of the United States, is not drawn in popular rights. They will inquire who these nullifiers are,

H. OF R.]

Reports of the Judiciary Committee.

[FEB. 9, 1831.

In or

and what part they bore in the darkest and most trying Federalist, says, "that in a single republic, all the powers period of our history. They will ask, where were these surrendered by the people are submitted to the administranullifiers during the late war, when a foreign enemy pol- tion of a single Government; and usurpations are guarded luted our shores, and threatened the liberties of our coun- against by a division of the Government into districts and try? Did they contribute men or money to sustain us in separate departments. In the compound republic of Ameour deep distress, to meet the wants of an empty treasury rica, the power surrendered by the people is first divided and destitute army; to repel the pampered myrmidons of between two distinct Governments, and then the position a haughty foe; to mitigate the calamities of a relentless allotted to each is subdivided among districts and separate war, and to bring the contest to a happy and glorious ter- departments. Hence a double security to the rights of mination? They must know the object of the nullifiers the people: the different Governments will control each before they can sympathize with those who have a com- other, at the same time each will be controlled by itself." mon interest in decrying them. Their object is to pre- In this article it is clearly seen that the State Governments serve the Union, and save the constitution at its last gasp. were not considered as subordinate to the General GoIf they acted the part of patriots during the late war, vernment, though the different departments of each had when actions spoke devotion to liberty and the Union a portion of counter controlling power. The courts of louder than words; if they have always sustained the prin- the State Governments have authority to decide on the ciples of republicanism, and are now sustaining them in laws, treaties, and constitution of the United States; and their purity, surely such men are not to be sacrificed, to the federal courts in turn have an equal power to adjudigratify the indomitable ambition of weak, but cunning in- cate the laws and constitutions of the United States. Take triguers, who have no claims to the distinction after which from the States this privilege, and you destroy that recithey aspired, but an acknowledged capacity to plan and procal action, that principle asserted in the Federalist. execute all the petty devices of political management. Sir, said Mr. D., we have fallen on evil times; the good Sir, said Mr. D., the South has always been the defender old republican doctrine of '98 is openly repudiated and of our country in times of difficulty and danger; the firm discarded by many who once figured on the theatre of advocate and supporter of the constitution and the union democracy. He [Mr. D.] remembered, that, after Mr. of the States. The complaint urged against that patriotic Clay had voted for the compensation law, so called, an State, (South Carolina.) by designing politicians, is, that excitement arose in his district against that measure. The her constituted authorities believe that the powers of the opponent of Mr. Clay for a seat in the National Legislature, General Government have been transcended by Congress, although at that time not a favorite with the people, yet and that their only relief is to be found in a direct appeal he was likely to outstrip Mr. Clay in the canvass. to the people of their own State in convention. In a mea- der to counteract, or rather counterbalance, the popular sure of this character there is no danger to be apprehend- odium which this compensation law had excited, one of ed, because the people have to settle the question whe- the friends of Mr. Clay published a handbill, charging ther there has been a palpable, deliberate, and dangerous his opponent with having voted against the famous resoexercise of power by the General Government. The solutions of '98, declaring the "alien and sedition laws" unlemn manner in which this subject is to be tested, the time constitutional, and asserting the absolute right of the States given for ample investigation, are sure guaranties that the to judge of their constitutionality. During this animated expressed constitutional rights of the General Government contest, these resolutions were made the test between fewill be properly appreciated. The liberties of the peo- deralist and republican; or, in other words, between those ple are always more secure in the hands of those politi- who would retain, and exercise by the people and by the cians who refrain from the exercise of doubtful authority, States, those powers not expressly granted by the constithan with those who estimate their own judgment as supe-tution, and those who were disposed to yield up all to the rior to their constituents, and, when the chain of legitimate decision of one grand consolidated Government, wielding power is stretched to its utmost, hesitate not to break a the power and patronage of all, and tending to tyranny link, if necessary, to accomplish the ends of unchastened and despotism. These resolutions went as far, if not farambition. Hence the propriety of a full discussion and ther, in limiting the action of the Government, than the consultation by the people and their agents, before they leading politicians of South Carolina. The President himproceed to decide on this very delicate and important self has not stopped short of that doctrine. He has said, question. The individual who may have formed an er- in language not to be misapprehended, to the Cherokee roneous opinion in relation to the reserved powers of the Indians, that the State of Georgia had a right to extend States or the people, can never be a proper subject of her laws over them, the intercourse law of Congress to popular censure, if the opinion so formed be favorable to the contrary notwithstanding. Sir, said Mr. D., I most the rights of the people. The agents, doubtful of their heartily coincide with the President in this decision, and authority, appeal to the principals who are most interest- am proud to be sustained by such eminent authority. It ed, and ask them to settle the doubtful point. Who, 1 is true, we may differ about the mode of accomplishing would ask, said Mr. D., is better qualified? The Govern- the same object. In order to get rid of an act of Conment is their own property, formed by their own hands, gress believed to be unconstitutional, the Legislature of created for their own use and convenience, and not to Georgia passes an act extending her authority over the gratify the selfish cravings for power and patronage of Indians within her limits; and the President tells the Inthose who may be called to administer its functions. The dians that they must submit to its operation, all treaties or people have a right to dispose of this Government in the bargains to the contrary. This covers every principle manner pointed out by the constitution. This is a posi- contended for by the patriotic citizens of South Carolina; tion so clear that it cannot be denied. It then follows as by this, an act of Congress, to use a common phrase, is a necessary consequence that the States have a right to nullified. In 1798, the pure days of democracy, the State judge of its operations, and to apply a remedy whenever of Kentucky was in favor of nullifying the alien and sediit may appear to them that their agents have transcended tion laws. The resolutions passed on this subject are the limits of the constitution. The beauty and harmony couched in plain language; they are said to have proceedof our Government consists mainly in its operation, when ed from the pen of Thomas Jefferson, the sage of Montithat operation is not interrupted by collision with the cello, himself; let them speak for themselves. In these State Governments. To prevent this evil, a proper re- resolutions, the Legislature of Kentucky declare that spect must be paid to each. The one would then control the Government created by the compact was not made the the other, while each would control itself. Of this opi- exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delenion was Mr. Hamilton, who, in one of the numbers of the gated to itself, since that would have made its discretion,

66

FEB. 9, 1831.]

Defaulters-Land Offices.

[H. OF R.

and not the constitution, the measure of its powers; but Kentucky has been made a victim by the prostration of her that, as in all other cases of compact, having no common occupant laws. Under the 25th section, writs of error judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, are now prosecuted from the decision of the supreme as well of infractions, as of the mode and manner of re- court of the State of Kentucky, with the view again to dress." test the validity of these claims; and not only to vacate the

This subject was re-examined in 1790, and the resolu-law, but to vacate the decision of the court. To avoid tions previously adopted were re-affirmed; and it was consequences so injurious, and even destructive of the then declared, that, "if those who administered the Ge-peace and harmony of the courts, the majority of the comneral Government should be permitted to transgress the mittee submitted the report now asked to be printed. limits fixed by the compact, by a total disregard of the Mr. D. said, in conclusion, that he was in favor of nulspecial delegations of power therein contained, an anni-lification, so far as to remonstrate, either in convention, or hilation of the State authorities, and the erection, on their by the State Legislature, against any act of usurpation, ruins, of a general, consolidated Government, would be either by the General or State Governments. To an imthe inevitable consequence. That, by the principles of partial people, seeking their own happiness in the manconstruction contended for by several of the State Legis-ner which, to them, seems most suitable, matters of this latures, the General Government is the exclusive judge of character should at all times be submitted in an unsothe extent of the powers delegated to it; stop nothing short phisticated, unprejudiced, authentic shape. This cannot of the despotism; since the discretion of those who ad- be better done than by the mode pointed out by Mr. Jefminister the Government, and not the constitution, would ferson. Ile declares that "it is a fatal heresy to suppose be the measure of their powers." "That the several States that either our State Governments are inferior to the Fewhich formed that instrument, being sovereign and inde-deral, or the Federal to the State; neither is authorized pendent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its literally to decide what belongs to itself, or to its copartner construction; and that the nullification, by these sovereign-in government. In differences of opinion between their ties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that in- different sets of public servants, the appeal is to neither, but strument, is the right remedy." to their employers, peaceably assembled in convention." The doctrine, that the States are inferior to the General Government, Mr. D. said, he could not subscribe to. Hie had always acted with the republican party-his constituents were republicans of the school of '98, of the Jeffersonian stamp, and they knew how to appreciate those principles, and to estimate the motives of honest, fearless, patriotic men.

Sir, said Mr. D., Virginia responded to those resolutions, and the doctrines which they contain were re-asserted in an able report, which has ever since been the textbook of the republican party. If South Carolina has acted in any manner, on the subject of State authority, so as to incur the displeasure of Virginia or Kentucky, the of fence evidently proceeds, said Mr. D., from the example set by these States. The issues of the controversy in that To the House, Mr. D. said, he was under obligations State, even admit that they have gone further than the for the indulgence they had extended to him; and, in reKentucky resolutions, prove that no danger is to be appre-turn, offered them his thanks for the favor and attention hended when a subject is openly investigated before the they had bestowed.

DEFAULTERS.

Mr. WICKLIFFE laid on the table the following resolution:

people. The principles of this Government are never in [That portion of the hour allotted for the consideration danger from an open, bold, and manly assertion of the of resolutions, which was given to this subject each mornrights either of the States or of the people. If ever this ing, obliged Mr. DANIEL to deliver the preceding reGovernment is subverted, it will be by indirect, insidious marks in detached portions, on several different days, but approaches, by secret conclaves, and treacherous machi-his speech is given here entire.] nations. The people of the South are too high-minded, chivalrous, and patriotic, to attempt any act which they may conceive their duty imposes on them, in secret, or under the cover of the shades of night. What they do, is done in the face of day. In all their public meetings they Resolved, That the President of the United States be resolve that they are steadfastly attached to the Union; requested to communicate to this House the amount of and their efforts are bent towards its preservation. It is each defalcation, and the names of the defaulters; the a source of some amusement to hear the old federalists names and amount of each peculation upon the treasury, and Hartford convention men, with the parrot cry of dis-or fraudulent use of the public money by individuals in union and nullification on their lips. They appear to have the employment of the Government; and the names of the entirely forgotten the Hartford convention. In this me-person or persons concerned therein; the instances in morable convocation, the seeds of treason and disunion which the public money has been misapplied or diverted were freely sown; and the time and manner selected for from the objects for which it was appropriated by Conthe occasion were congenial to a fruitful harvest. Their gres; and, also, the amount of improper allowances to plots were all laid in private, with closed doors, and secre-officers, agents, or others, in the public employment, cy enjoined under the sacred obligations of an oath. One made by any of the departments of the Government; the of these resolutions shows the character of the assembly, amount thereof, and to whom allowed, since the 3d day though it is to be expected that the most odious part of of March, 1825. their proceedings has never yet been permitted to see the light. The resolution to which he alluded was couched in the following words: "The most inviolable secrecy The House then resumed the consideration of the bill shall be observed by each member of the convention, in- to establish a land office in the Territory of Michigan, the cluding the secretary, as to all propositions, debates, and amendment of the Senate to provide for the establishment proceedings thereof, until this injunction shall be suspend-of an additional land office in the State of Indiana being ed or altered." It is from proceedings of this character under consideration.

LAND OFFICES.

that danger is to be apprehended; and they are now men- Mr. WICKLIFFE submitted an amendment, to strike tioned, to show the reckless expedients to which some out part of the Senate's amendment, and to provide for politicians will resort in order to obtain power. The attaching the lands in Indiana proposed to be formed injudiciary of the Union, with that same reckless purpose, to a new land district to the Fort Wayne district. The has given decision after decision, declaring the laws of the motion to strike out was declared to be not in order. States unconstitutional and void. Not a single State, he After a few remarks by Messrs. IRVIN, of Ohio, and believed, had escaped the nullifying spirit of this tribunal. HUNT,

H. or R.]

MINISTER TO RUSSIA.

Minister to Russia.

The House then resumed the consideration of the general appropriation bill-the question being on the proviso yesterday submitted by Mr. PEARCE, and which was accepted by Mr. STANBERY as a modification of his motion to strike out the appropriation for the salary of the

[FEB. 9, 1831.

Mr. WICKLIFFE submitted the following amendment: lary to the legal termination of the mission, these could "That all the lands to which the Indian title is extin- not be divested by our vote or action in any form. True, guished, lying in that part of the State of Indiana which it happened that in this case the outfit has not been paid. is east of the Lake Michigan, bordering upon the northern A contract to pay was not of the less obligation. If paid, line of said State, and not attached to any land district, it would not be pretended that the disbursement could shall be, and is hereby, attached to the Fort Wayne dis- have been reclaimable, as made without authority. Thus, trict." as regarded the prospective operation of the motion, no This amendment, after some discussion between Messrs. form could be given to it, to cut off the obnoxious minisWICKLIFFE, DUNCAN, JENNINGS, TEST, and VIN-ter, which would not at the same time cut off the entire TON, was agreed to; and the bill, as amended, returned mission-a result which no one desired, every person proto the Senate for concurrence in the amendment. fessed to deprecate. The error of gentlemen was in supposing that these effects could be separated. Give the motion any modification, yet this purpose could not be accomplished. We had to appropriate, or refuse, or reduce, or regulate the mode and forms of disbursement of the appropriation. Still we could not frame one grant in any way, to speak our disapprobation of the minister, without operation on the mission. Any denial, any re. trenchment of allowances, must affect the successor, (supposing the knowledge of dissatisfaction to induce a new appointment,) no less than the incumbent. These Strike out all after the word "time," and insert the gentlemen were carried beyond the mark they admitted following: [so that it would read, "Provided that the to be proper by the motion. The amendments (in either time"] form) were open to stronger objection and reprehension; "Shall be deducted, in computing the salary or yearly still each of those proposed a proportionate limitation on compensation of any minister, during which he shall have the compensation, in the event of absence of the minister absented himself from the country, by the Government of from his post. This would be planting in the statute book which he shall have been received, for objects not con- a stigma not confined to the obnoxious person, expres nected with the public service, and in pursuance of per-sive of a distrust of common and decent fidelity in our dimission so to absent himself, given previous to the com- plomatic agents of every grade, which, surely, even party mencement of his mission, and in anticipation that such excitement would cease to regard with disapproval and absence would be necessary." regret.

minister to Russia.

Mr. HUNTINGTON submitted the following amend

ment to the amendment of Mr. PEARCE:

Mr. HUNTINGTON said a few words in favor of his amendment.

The grounds of the motion were the unfitness of the late appointment, and the permission of absence from his Mr. ARCHER, of Virginia, next rose. He said he post, of which the minister had availed himself. Were would make the most substantial acknowledgment in his these grounds in any view adequate? Into the fact of unpower for the courtesy extended to him the preceding fitness, Mr. A. did not mean to inquire. Let it be assum evening, by the utmost compression of what he had to ofed. Was it a warrant for the motion? The gentleman fer. His peculiar excuse for offering any thing at this from Rhode Island [Mr. BURGES] had put it to his [Mr. A.'s] stage of the discussion, the House would not forget. This candor to say whether it had not been usual to stir debate debate had the public for its mark, not the House. The of this character in this House. The inference was, that missiles were forged and imbued with their venom here; there was nothing improper in stirring this. He [Mr. A.] but the House was only the medium to scatter them had neither said nor supposed that there was. Undoubtthrough the nation. The attack had been vehement on edly it was both competent and proper, in this House, to the Executive for the supposed abuse of one of its proper have inquiry, or raise debate, on any or every subject functions. It was due to justice that the case should be connected with national interest. Wherever it was comput on fair grounds; and if any thing had been omitted, petent to make inquiries and debate, opinion, formal as or appeared to him to have been omitted, in this respect, well as informal, might be expressed. But it did not fol Mr. A. said that he felt (from his position in the House) low that there might be action, and in any form, at pleathat he was placed in some degree of commitment to sup- sure, ensuring this opinion. The propriety of entertainply it. In his mode of discharging this office, he should ment of a motion, or of debate on it, was a very different probably meet exactly the views of the party or person. question from that of its adoption. If it were conceived On the pretensions of Mr. Randolph, so much discussed, that a disregard of public interest had been evinced, either he should not add a word, nor a word of extenuation of in the appointment of the minister to Russia, or in his the appointment. His object would be to prove that, conduct in his mission, nothing could be more unques whatever the defect of the one, or demerit of the other, tionably proper than the expression of this sentiment in the motion, in any of its forms, ought not to be sustained. any mode which the forms of the House would admit. If Least of all, Mr. A. said, had he any design to mix in this the proposition were to go further than the expression of conflict of asperity, which had made so large a part of the opinion, other questions must be presented, respecting debate. He should be restrained by taste as well as for- the competence of action, the propriety, supposing it mer professions, from doing so. A large toleration was competent, and the force of it, supposing it proper. due to the exacerbations of party, and even personal con- would not be contested that the selection of diplomatic tention in this House; but it appeared to him [Mr. A.] functionaries, belonging to the office of the Executive, that there were extremes, which the credit of party re- would not be competent or proper to intrude on this quired should be repressed. Whether an example had function. If, in any instance, the House should use the been afforded in the present instance, he should leave to instrumentality of one of its proper functions for such a others to pronounce, under his pledge to abstain from all purpose, this would be an abuse. This proposition would participation of asperity.

The original motion proposed withholding the entire appropriation for the mission to Russia, as even expressive of dissatisfaction with the recent appointment of a minister. But the minister having accepted and gone out under his appointment, entitled by law to outfit, and sa

It

not be contested. Suppose, then, the adoption of the present resolution was to have the desired effect of producing the supercession of Mr. Randolph, would this be a legitimate exercise of our authority over appropriation? If it would, upon the best founded grounds of disapproval, we might force the dismission of this minister.

What