ends of tyranny. It is a power vested in a majority, to forbid at their sovereign will and pleasure, every member not of that majority, from making known either his own sentiments, or the wishes or complaints of his constituents, in relation to any subject under consideration, or from attempting to amend what is proposed as a law for the government of the whole nation." Mr. Gaston continued in this impassioned and vehement manner to the end, and at once excited the astonishment and admiration of the House.

After his retirement from Congress until 1834, he was generally engaged in the duties of his profession; but, during the same time, was for a long period a member of the North Carolina assembly. In that body, it is said, he delivered many of his ablest and most brilliant speeches; two of which are mentioned with peculiar approbation: one, on the currency of the State, delivered in 1828; the other in defence of the constitution of North Carolina. Of the latter, one of his contemporaries says:-"That speech will long be remembered. The Constitution of the State is a venerable instrument. It came down to the present generation, from the sages of the Revolution, and is loved and venerated in North Carolina for its very antiquity. It was a fit subject for the exhibition of his learning, eloquence and patriotism, and these resources of his mind he poured forth with the most brilliant profusion,

In 1834, Mr. Gaston was elevated to the bench of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, where he remained until his death. His judicial decisions evince the most profound acquaintance with the science of the law, and are ranked, by competent authority, among the ablest legal arguments of the United States. In the prosecution of his duties as judge he was affable, patient and devoted. On the day of his death, January the twenty-third, 1843, he took his seat as usual, though he had for several days experienced quite severe illness. He remained on the bench until nearly two o'clock in the afternoon, giving attention to a case then under consideration, when he was attacked with faintness, and other violent symptoms. He was then taken to his room, and soon relieved; he became quite cheerful, and conversed freely with his friends. In the course of the evening he related several anecdotes, and gave a description of a party he attended in Washington many years previous. Speaking of one whom he met on that occasion, who declared himself a free-thinker in matters pertaining to religion, he said, "From that day I always looked on that man with distrust. I do not say that a free-thinker may not be an honorable man, or that he may not, from higher motives, scorn to do a mean act; but I dare not trust him. A belief in an All-ruling Divinity, who shapes our ends, whose eye is upon us, and who will reward us according to our deeds, is necessary. We must believe and feel that there is a God; all-wise and almighty." As he was uttering the last sentence, he rose to give it greater emphasis, when he suddenly fell back and expired.*

SPEECH ON THE LOAN BILL.

This speech, on a bill to authorize a loan of | twenty-five millions of dollars, was delivered by Mr. Gaston, in the House of Representatives of the United States, on the eighteenth and nineteenth days of February, 1814.

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I fear I am about to engage in a very injudicious attempt-I fear that the patience of the committee is exhausted, and that it would be idle to hope for their attention. It was originally my wish to claim their notice at an early stage of the debate; but I found this

National Intelligencer, 1843: American Almanac, 1845: MS. Letter of J. S. Eustace in the possession of the editor.

wish was not to be effected but by a competition for the floor, and I thought such a compewhich I had to submit. Under these imprestition not justified by the nature of the remarks sions I had made up my mind to wait until some favorable unoccupied interval should be presented; and I should not now have presumed to anticipate other gentlemen who seem disposed to address you, but for some extraordinary observations which have just been uttered, and which in my opinion demand immediate animadversion.

The gentleman from Tennessee, who has this moment resumed his seat, (Mr. Grundy,) seems a little sore that his doctrine of Moral Treason, which he promulgated at the last session, should have been so vehemently oppugned by the per

sons for whose benefit he had compiled it. I am not of the number of those, Mr. Chairman, who have deemed this doctrine worthy of examination. As originally understood, it was so preposterous and so repugnant to the principles of our constitution, that every intelligent freeman found its refutation in the consciousness of his own liberty. By subsequent explanations and definitions it has been so attenuated and subtilized, that what was never very distinct now almost eludes perception. According to the last attempt at exposition, if it have any meaning, it would seem to embrace systematic efforts to persuade capitalists not to lend money, and the unthinking youth not to enlist as soldiers to | carry on the war against Canada. His denunciations of such a system-of the existence of which I know nothing; and which, if it exist, is innocent or criminal according to the motives from which it springs-pass by me altogether unheeded. But his unfounded imputations upon some of the best men and truest patriots of the country, and his attempt to support his doctrine by their example, ought to be repelled, and a very short notice will suffice for that purpose.

itself in actual war against the nation. It was altogether unnecessary, if there had been any common law applicable in the courts of the United States; for in every government under Heaven the acts which it describes are made punishable. A doubt whether the common law had a federal existence alone occasioned the passing of the law. Yet we are gravely asked if, in the year 1798, men had combined together to dissuade persons from lending money to the government, or from enlisting in the army; whether they could not have been punished under this law? No, sir.-No, sir. There was not a prosecuting officer in the United States so ignorant of his duty as to dare to bring forward an indictment upon such a pretext.

To the next sectica of this abused act the gentleman has given an interpretation as destitute of plausibility even as his exposition of the first section. To find a warrant for his doctrine of moral treason, or to lessen its odium by casting reproach on others, the gentleman has charged that this section subjected to indictment and punishment the publication of scandalous and malicious writings against the government, althongh The gentleman has referred to the act of 14th they might be true-and that had it not been July, 1798, the much misrepresented and abused for the third section of the act, which his presedition law. It is difficult for me to express decessor moved in the House of Representamy astonishment at the construction which he tives after the bill had passed the Senate, the affixes to the first section of this act. Need we truth would have afforded no defence on an wonder at any error, however gross, at any indictment for a libel against the government. prejudice, however irrational, prevailing in re- Sir, this position is utterly untenable. No part spect to party measures and party opinions, of it is true. The gentleman must be presumwhen we find a professional gentleman assign- ed to know, and ought to recollect, that when ing to a law a meaning which, but for what we an offence is created by statute, every word of have heard, would have been pronounced impos- the description of the offence is material and sible on the part of any man of ordinary good essential. What are the words describing the sense? The first section of this law declares, offence? "If any person shall write, print, or that if any persons shall conspire together with publish any false, scandalous and malicious wriintent to oppose any measures of the government ting against the government, &c." It is a neof the United States, and in pursuance of such cessary part of the offence that the writing intent shall counsel, or attempt to procure, insur- should be false. If it be not false, then the rections, riots, &c., they shall be deemed guilty crime has not been committed, the law has of a misdemeanor punishable by fine and impris- not been broken, and punishment cannot be inonment. Can it be necessary to ask what was flicted. Why then, I may be asked, was the meant in this law by the expression "with in- third section, moved by the gentleman's predetent to oppose any measures of the govern- cessor, inserted in the law? The answer is, ment?" To oppose, in its plain original sense, to avoid all cavil, all real or pretended doubt, necessarily implies physical resistance the ex- all foundation for the charge that would have ercise of force. It is metaphorically used, in- been made had it been rejected. It might have deed, to signify dissuasion, as the word to com- been pretended that on an indictment for libel bat is applied to denote a controversy in argu- at common law, the truth or falsehood of the ment; and a law prohibiting single combats charge was not a matter of inquiry before the might as well be interpreted to forbid contro-jury, so on an indictment for libel under this versies in discourse, as a law prohibiting opposition to the measures of government construed to interdict the expression of honest opinions that may retard their operations. But the act is still more explicit. To constitute crime, it requires not only that the persons should combine "with intent to oppose the measures of government," but that in pursuance of such intent they should proceed to "counsel or attempt to procure insurrections, riots," &c. The design of the act is unequivocal-it is to check and punish incipient treason before it has manifested

act, notwithstanding its plain words, the falsehood of the publication was not material to constitute the offence and had the proposed amendment been rejected, from the specimen we have this day had of the course of legal thinking of one of the bar of Tennessee, there is a moral certainty, that the law would have been there stigmatized as designed to prohibit the publication of truth. To adopt the amendment removed all pretext for such a misrepresentation. It was accordingly incorporated into the law; and to show that it was not introductory

of any new principle, it was expressed as declar- | do will avail nothing; but, sir, representing a atory of the preceding section, "And be it en-respectable portion of the American people who acted and declared, that it shall be lawful for are suffering with peculiar severity from the the defendant, on trial, to give in evidence, in his defence, the truth of the matter charged as a libel." No, sir-the idea of punishing truth when published against the officers of the government was reserved until more recent times -until the abused sedition law had expired, and the champions of a free press were safely fixed in power. Surely the gentleman has not been so inattentive to the course of public proceedings as never to have heard of the case of Harry Croswell. He, for an alleged libel on Mr. Jefferson, was indicted at common law, not under the horrible sedition act; he was not permitted to prove the truth of his publication, and was thus convicted!

pressure of this unfortunate and mismanaged war, who, with me, believe no good is to grow out of it, and who apprehend, from its continuance, evils, compared with which all they have yet suffered are but trifles light as air-I should be unfaithful to them and myself, if I did not interpose my best efforts to arrest the downhill career of ruin. In performing this duty I shall certainly say the things I do think. Endeavoring to use such language only as is consistent with self-respect and decency towards those who differ from me in opinion, I mean freely to exercise the right which belongs to my station.

Right! did I say, sir? The expression is inaccurate; once indeed there did exist in this I have done, sir, with the gentleman from House the right of free discussion. It was once Tennessee, his moral treason, and his exposition deemed a constitutional privilege for every of the sedition law-and will endeavor to call member to bring forward any proposition he your attention to subjects not altogether so for- deemed beneficial to the country, and support eign from the bill upon the table. The object it by whatever arguments he could adduce; to of the bill is to authorize a loan to the govern- offer amendments to the propositions of others, ment of the United States. The precise propo- so as to render them, in his judgment, more unsition before you is to declare what sum shall exceptionable; and to state the reasons of his be borrowed; "twenty-five millions of dollars." dissent from any measure on which he was Enormous as is the addition which is thus pro- called to vote, and endeavor to impress his posed to be made to our debts, could it be opinion on others. No doubt a vast portion shown to be necessary to accomplish any pur- of the good people of this republic yet believe poses demanded by the honor and welfare of that such is the course of proceedings here. the country, it assuredly would meet with no Little do they dream of the complicated maopposition from me. Is a loan wanted, or rev-chinery, by means of which every privilege, enue required to enable the government to pay except that of thinking, is made to depend on off its just engagements? to give security and the pleasure, the courtesy, the whim of the maprotection to any part of our territory, or any jority. By certain interpolations into our pracportion of our citizens? to afford to our gallant tice, but which nowhere show their hideous navy (that precious relic of better days) such front in our written code, the system of supencouragement and extension as may enable it pressing the liberty of speech is brought to a more effectually to vindicate our rights on the degree of perfection that almost astonishes its element where they have been assailed? My authors. A gentleman wishes to bring forward voice and assistance shall be cheerfully render- an original proposition-he must first state it, ed to obtain them. Let the present proposition and obtain permission from a majority of the be withdrawn, and let it be moved to fill the House to let it be considered, before he can blank with such sum as shall be adequate to show the propriety of adopting it, or ask even supply any deficiency of revenue wanted for for a decision upon it. Thus is annihilated the these purposes, and I will second the motion. right of originating a proposition. But a propoNay, sir, should the present proposition be re-sition is originated by others, it is passed through jected, (for while it is pending, a smaller sum the ordeal of consideration, and he is desirous cannot be moved,) and none of those who are of amending its defects or of exposing its immost conversant with the state of our finances, propriety. This is, perhaps, deemed inconvenshould come forward with a further proposition,ient by the majority. It may give them trouI will myself undertake to move the sum which shall appear competent to effect all these objects. But, sir, this enormous sum is wanted not for these purposes; it is avowedly not necessary, except to carry on the scheme of invasion and conquest against the Canadas. To this scheme I have never been a friend; but to its prosecution now, I have invincible objections, founded on considerations of justice, humanity, and national policy. These objections I wish to explain and enforce, and thus avail myself of an opportunity of discussing some of the most interesting topics which grow out of the alarming state of the nation. I fear that all I can

ble, or bring forward a discussion which they do not wish the people to hear, or detain them too long from their dinners-a new species of legerdemain is resorted to. The previous question, utterly perverted from its original and legitimate use, is demanded; the demand is supported by a majority. In an instant all the proposed amendments disappear; every tongue is so fettered, that it can utter but aye or no, and the proposition becomes a law without deliberation, without correction, and without debate. And this process is called legislation! And the hall in which these goodly doings are transacted is sometimes termed the Temple of Liberty!

ter is not defined by the nature of these operations. But, sir, he is incorrect in supposing that its character is to be tested by the motive which occasioned its institution. War is offensive or defensive, simply as it is instituted by or against a nation. It is an appeal to force to decide controversies between sovereigns who admit of no other tribunal to determine their rights. There is a perfect analogy in this respect between nations at war, and individuals litigating in a court of justice. He who commences the process is the actor he who is summoned to the controversy, has the defensive

the motive to litigation be found in an honest desire to claim what is due, or in the malignant wish to oppress and defraud. For the correctness of these ideas, I rely not on my own judgment. This ought not without hesitation to be opposed to that of the honorable gentleman who, independently of his personal claims to atten tion as chairman of the committee of foreign relations, must be presumed to be particularly conversant with all questions connected with national law. Any person who has the curiosity to test these sentiments by the authority of jurists, will find them explicitly recognized by Burlamaqui, vol. 2. part 4. chapt. 3. § 5., and

Sir, this procedure must be corrected, or free-operations, and of consequence that its charac-. dom is ejected from her citadel and wounded in her very vitals. Inconveniences also result to the majority from this tyrannical exercise of power, sufficient, perhaps, to counterbalance all the benefits which can be derived from it. Gentlemen often complain that the minority do not pursue the practice which is adopted by minorities elsewhere. In England, say they, the opposition address the House and the nation only on great fundamental questions involving disputed principles, and do not hang on the skirts of every bill, fighting the ministry through all the details of their measures. Why is not the same course pursued here? The answer is ob-part, and it is in this view immaterial whether vious. Here the minority are not allowed to bring forward these great fundamental questions they have no opportunity of showing their views, except such as may be casually afforded by some measure of the majority, on which they are good natured enough to allow debate. Unless they avail themselves of such a bill in every stage of it, as a peg on which to hang their observations, they must be utterly mute. Thus it happens, too, that there is frequently not any discernible connection between the topics discussed, and the subject supposed to be under debate. Perhaps the very course I am pursuing is an apt illustration of these facts. Some weeks since I submitted to the House aby Vattel-b. 3. chapt. 3. § 35 and 37. resolution which I thought eminently deserving of attention-a resolution "that pending our negotiation with Great Britain, it is inexpedient to prosecute a war of invasion and conquest against the Canadas." This resolution could not be discussed, for the House would not vouchsafe to it a consideration. But, as on the proposition now before you, debate is indulged, and has assumed a latitude that seems to permit every thing connected with the war, I am willing to embrace the occasion to support my favorite proposition, to which a regular hearing has been refused. Grateful even for this opportunity, I acknowledge the courtesy which is shown me by the majority; sorely as I feel the degradation of indirectly using as a favor what, as a freeman and the representative of freemen, I ought openly to enjoy as a right.

It is very far from my design to enter into a particular inquiry as to the origin of this war, or as to its causes whether technical or real. Such an inquiry would present a theme too important and too extensive to be taken up as collateral or subsidiary to some other investigation. At the present moment, too, it is not so essential to know how this war has been produced, as it is to ascertain how it ought to be prosecuted, and how it may be speedily and fairly brought to a close:-So far only as a knowledge of the origin and causes of this war may be useful in producing this result, is it my purpose now to consider them.

An honorable gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Calhoun) claims for this war the character of defensive. He has properly remarked that a war defensive in its origin may be offensive in its

Nor let it be deemed, sir, of no importance whether this war be called defensive or offensive. It is always of moment that things should be called by their right names. Many of the vices and most of the errors of men arise from the misapplication of terms. The reasoner, who uses words to convey a meaning variant from their received signification, will probably occa sion error, however precise his definitions. In spite of definitions, the hearer appropriates to his expressions the sense which usage has associated, and a confusion of ideas fatal to truth is the unavoidable consequence. Many phrases, too, besides their primary meaning, convey a secondary sense of commendation or blame. By an artful use of these, the sophist is enabled to convert the honest prejudices of man, the guards of his security, into the instruments of his deception. The sagacious Mirabeau, than whom none better understood the arts which render the human understanding and passions subservient to the tyranny of fraud, he who so long "rode in the whirlwind, and directed the storm of the most furious of revolutions; compressed the elements of his science into one sententious maxim, "words are things." But the distinction between offensive and defensive war has peculiar claims upon our recollection. So fatal is war to the best interests of the human family, that a tremendous responsibility always rests upon the nation that commences it. This responsibility attaches through all its stages, and is awfully increased into certain guilt, by the neglect of any fair opportunity to restore the relations of peace. Besides the consideration that the war was offensive in its origin—that

consideration which emphatically creates the obligation to terminate its horrors as speedily as justice will permit-will frequently be found to present the greatest obstacles to efforts at reconcilation.

exertion to vindicate the new religion of the flag, which like the superstition of the sanctuary was to protect every fraud, and shelter every crime. Extravagant therefore, as the positions of the gentleman from Pennsylvania may be thought by the far greater part of this com

the administration than is generally suspected, and on this account may deserve a rapid and transient examination. The assertion that by the general law of nations the character of the vessel gives a character to the goods, is unequivocally denied. The actual reverse of the assertion is maintained by jurists generally with a harmony that forbids doubt.

Instead of detailing their opinions separately, permit me to give the language of one who wished well to the gentleman's doctrine, who had often carefully explored the musty volumes of national law, and who was never apt to carry his admissions beyond the line which candor prescribed. Mr. Jefferson in his letter to Genet, of the 24th July, 1793, expresses himself thus: "I believe it cannot be doubted but that by the general law of nations, the goods of a friend found in the vessel of an enemy are free, and the goods of an enemy found in the vessel of a friend are lawful prize. It is true that sundry nations, desirous of avoiding the inconveniences of having their vessels stopped at sea, ransacktence of having enemy's goods on board, have in many instances introduced another principle between them, that enemy bottoms shall make enemy goods, and that friendly bottoms shall make friendly goods; a principle much less embarrassing to commerce, and equal to all parties in point of gain or loss-but this is altogether the effect of particular treaty controlling in special cases the general principles of the law of nations, and therefore taking effect between such nations only as have agreed to control it." If the gentleman will examine the treaties to which he has adverted, the commercial treaty of Utrecht, between England and France (which by the bye the House of Commons refused to sanction), and the subsequent commercial treaty of Mr. Pitt, in 1786, he will find the language on this head unequivocal. The arrangement is declared to be made with a view to prevent the embarrassments and dissensions that would arise without such an arrangement

The advocates for this war, vieing with each other in zeal for its justification and con-mittee, they may have more countenance from tinuance, do not precisely agree in opinion, as to its causes, or as to the objects for which it is to be prosecuted. The gentleman from Pennsylvania who presides over your judiciary committee (Mr. Ingersoll), in an elaborate argument seems desirous to prove (I am not certain which) either that the war is a consequence of the violation on the part of Great Britain of his favorite principle "free ships make free goods," or is to result in the establishment of this principle. This comprehensive dogma the gentleman contends to be a part of the original unadulterated code of national law, consecrated by the treaty of Utrecht, strenuously asserted by Britain herself in her dispute with Spain, in the year 1737, recognized in her commercial treaty with France, in 1786, and vitally essential to our maritime interests. The gentleman from Virginia, whom I yesterday heard with much pleasure (Mr. Jackson,) dissents from his political friend, and declares that this maxim has never been asserted by our government under any administration, as founded on the common law of nations. Although the gentleman fromed, carried into port, and detained under preVirginia is, in this respect, unquestionably correct, yet it is not certain that the chairman of the judiciary committee is altogether erroneous in attributing to the administration an expectation of establishing, by this war, some such theory. That the neutral flag shall protect all that it covers from capture, is a very convenient doctrine for a nation frequently at war with an adversary of decidedly superior maritime strength. France, who, with occasional short intervals, has been for centuries at war with England, has very naturally wished to incorporate this doctrine into the law of nations. Her imperial master has adopted it as one of the elementary principles of his new maritime code, which he solemnly promulgated in his decree of Berlin, of November, 1806, and in support of which he has used every violence and stratagem to array the nations of the world into one great maritime confederacy. At least, as early as the infamous Turreau letter of June, 1809, the executive of this country was perfectly apprised of the existence of such a confederacy, of the purposes which it was to uphold, and of the determination of France to bribe or compel our accession to it. The decree of the great protector of the confederacy, of the date of April, 1811, though probably not issued till May, 1812, announced in language sufficiently distinct, that this claim had been so far complied with on our part as to exempt us from the further application of the penalties of disobedience-And our declaration of war against the sole recusant of this imperial theory, was proclaimed by Napoleon to his Senate as a spirited and generous

or in other words, from the application of the principles of the common law of nations. Nor is it at all strange that Britain, in a commercial treaty, from which she expected to derive immense advantages, should acquiesce in such an arrangement as between her and France. For it is obvious that no practical effect could result from it, except when one was at peace and the other at war. And such a state of things has so rarely happened that its recurrence might be numbered among political impossibilities.

The "no search "clamor in England of 1737, which the gentleman has produced the parliamentary debates to prove, had about as much