t ROBERT GOODLOE HARPER. Of those learned and eloquent men, who belonged to the Maryland bar, during the latter portion of the last and the beginning of the present century, no one was more justly celebrated than General Harper. He was a native of Spottsylvania county, Virginia, where he was born in the year 1765. His parents removed, during his childhood, to Granville, in North Carolina. From this time until his appearance in the American service as a soldier in a troop of horse under General Greene, the record of his life is wanting. He was then but fifteen years old. At the age of twenty he entered the College of New Jersey, at Princeton, where, while perfecting his course, he acted as a tutor to some of the less advanced classes. In September, 1785, he received his first degree, choosing as the subject of his discourse, The Proper Objects of Education.* Soon after leaving college he embarked for Charleston, South Carolina, and after experiencing a boisterous and stormy passage, arrived at that place, "a stranger, with only a few dollars in his possession." Through the kindness of a gentleman, of whose son he had been a teacher while at Princeton, he was enabled to enter upon the study of law. So rapid was his improvement that he commenced practice in a year, and with a view of obtaining a larger sphere for his professional operations, he removed to the interior of the State. Here he became distinguished as a powerful political writer, and at a later period, was elected to the legislature of the State. On his retirement from this office, he was delegated to the lower house of the United States Congress, in which body he gained the enviable distinction of being an "earnest supporter of the measures of Washington, and a devoted, fearless friend of his country." In the animated and protracted discussion which followed the publication of the Treaty of 1794, General Harper took a prominent part. During the winter of the next year he published an elaborate address to his constituents, giving his reasons for approving the measure. After pointing out its merits, and answering with ability the objections of its opponents, he concludes:-"Such are the reasons which have induced me to believe, that the treaty in question is proper and expedient.' * * * * * Whenever it comes before us I shall give my voice for its going fully into effect; convinced that it is consistent with the honor and conducive to the interest and happiness of my country; of that country among whose citizens and whose sons it is my boast and my pride to be numbered, and to which it is my highest ambition to be useful." + In May, 1797, he published his Observations on the Dispute between the United States and France, and during the same month delivered a masterly speech on the necessity of resisting the encroachments of the latter nation. He continued in Congress during the three succeeding years, when, on the accession of President Jefferson, he retired for a time from public life; and, having married the daughter of Charles Carroll of Maryland, he removed to that State, and settled at Baltimore. Here he again commenced the practice of the law. His great professional qualifications were now brought into operation. In 1805, he was associated with Luther Martin * See New Jersey Gazette, of October 10th, 1785. + Select Works of Robert Goodloe Harper, vol. 1, page 41. and Joseph Hopkinson, as counsel for Judge Chase, in the celebrated trial which resulted in the acquittal of that officer on all the charges in his impeachment. In 1812, he was a member of the House of Representatives, from his adopted State. The following year he delivered the eulogistic speech in honor of the Russian victories, and soon after another similar oration on the Recent Triumphs of the Cause of Mankind in Germany.* About this time he held the rank of General, and distinguished himself honorably, in repelling the attack of the British on Baltimore. In the colonization of Africa, he took an active interest. One of the reports of the Society formed for that object, which was prepared by him, contains an elaborate exposition of the merits of the system. He viewed the plan of colonization as the only method by which the mischiefs of slavery could be lessened, and cherished the hope, that the day would come when the scourge of slavery would no longer be felt in the land, when the rod of chastisement should be withdrawn, and all voices should join in the song of freedom. "The alarming danger of cherishing in our bosom a distinct nation," he says, "which can never become incorporated with us, while it rapidly increases in numbers, and improves in intelligence; learning from us the arts of peace and war, the secret of its own strength, and the talent of combining and directing its force; a nation which must ever be hostile to us, from feeling and interest, because it can never incorporate with us, nor participate in the advantages we enjoy; the danger of such a nation in our bosom needs not to be pointed out to any reflecting mind. It speaks not only to our understanding, but to our very senses; and however it may be derided by some, or overlooked by others, who have not the ability or the time, or do not give themselves the trouble, to reflect on and estimate properly the force and extent of those great moral and physical causes, which prepare gradually, and at length bring forth, the most terrible convulsions in civil society; it will not be viewed without deep and awful apprehensions by any who shall bring sound minds, and some share of political knowledge and sagacity, to the serious consideration of the subject. Such persons will give their most serious attention to any proposition which has for its object the eradication of this terrible mischief, lurking in our vitals.” † In 1824, Mr. Harper advocated, in a powerful speech, the connection of the waters of the Ohio and the Chesapeake, by a canal through the District of Columbia. This speech was soon after published, together with a reply to some of the objections of the opponents of the scheme. The welfare of his adopted city always won his earnest attention, and although actively employed in his professional duties, he became identified with every project of public utility which was devised to increase the power and prosperity of the State. On the fourteenth of January, 1825, he died. "He dropped down dead," says Wirt, “and it is said by his physician, died probably before he reached the floor. He had no recent warning of the approach of death: on the contrary, he had been unusually well for some time past. On Thursday (the day previous to his decease), he was well in court, and made one of the best arguments he ever made in his life-an argument three hours long. I met him again in the afternoon, at a watchmaker's, and he told me that he did not experience the slightest inconvenience from his exertions in speaking in the morning, and that he never felt better. That night he was at a ball, and, I am told, was uncommonly gay and agreeable. On Friday morning he was again well, and had eaten his breakfast as usual, and was standing up before the fire, reading a newspaper, when death struck him, in the manner I have mentioned." His death was deeply felt in the community in which he had lived, at the bar of which he was such a distinguished ornament; and the nation mourned one of its purest and most enlightened patriots. § * This speech was delivered at Annapolis, Maryland, on the 20th of January, 1814, and subsequently published. + Annual Report of the American Society for Colonizing the Free People of Color of the United States, 1828. North American Review, vol. 18, page 62. Extract from a letter of William Wirt to his daughter, written two days after the death of General Harper.-Kennedy's Life of Wirt, vol. 2, page 195. See Washington National Journal of January 17th, 1825. THE AGGRESSIONS OF FRANCE. enemies' goods out of neutral ships, which Britain enjoys, and France by her treaty with us has given up. In these two points, it is the scope and object of the amendment to recommend, that the two nations should be placed on the same footing. Hence the amendment is to be considered under two points of view; first, the recommendation itself; and secondly, the thing recommended. In 1797, after the refusal of the French Di- | in that of France; and to the right of taking rectory to receive Mr. Pinckney, the minister of the United States, President Adams called an extra session of Congress to take the subject into consideration. On the sixteenth of May of that year, he delivered a speech before both Houses of Congress, in which he expressed in strong terms his great disapprobation of the indignity offered to the United States; and on the twenty-second day following, an answer to his speech was reported in the House of Representatives, responding to his sentiments. An amendment, however, was proposed, expressive of an opinion that the House viewed the con-dent and Senate. Can the House of Represenduct of the Directory as less reprehensible than it had been represented by the President, and recommending conciliatory measures as the basis of the negotiations about to be entered into with France. On the twenty-ninth of May, the amendment being under consideration, Mr. Harper spoke as follows: MR. CHAIRMAN: At the time the interruption took place on Saturday, by the unfortunate indisposition of the Speaker, I had drawn near to the close of those observations, with which at that time I intended to trouble the committee. I shall now resume, as nearly as possible, the same train of remarks, and bring them to a conclusion as speedily as possible. As more time, however, is now afforded to me, I will take a range somewhat more extensive than I had prescribed to myself on the former day, endeavoring, at the same time, to avoid every thing, not strictly relative to the question on the amendment, now under consideration. As to the recommendation itself, I ask, is it constitutional-is it useful-is it politic? With respect to its constitutionality, every body knows, that the power of negotiation is given wholly to the President by the constitution, and that of making treaties to the Presi tatives control or direct that power? Can it instruct the President in matters, which the constitution has intrusted solely and exclusively to his judgment? Shall it undertake to instruct him-will he be bound to obey those instructions? Should he think fit to pursue a different course, will the House be justified by the constitution and their duty in withholding supplies, and in leaving the country without defence? Do gentlemen foresee the dilemma, which they are preparing for themselves and for the House? a dilemma in which they must choose between pride and duty, between supporting the executive in measures adopted against their advice, and leaving the country defenceless, at the mercy of all who may choose to assail it? What possible effect can this interference have, but to lay the foundations of a schism between the different departments of government? But admitting such a recommendation to be conformable to the constitution, in what is it useful? Is it to dispose the executive to treat? If so, it is useless, for he already has that disposition, and has strongly declared it in his speech to both Houses. He has declared it as his resolution "to institute a fresh attempt at Mr. Harper here observed, that he should go negotiation, and to promote and accelerate an a little out of his way, in order to notice and accommodation, provided one can be made on terms compatible with the rights, duties, inrefute some positions laid down by gentlemen terests, and honor of the nation." He has dein favor of the amendment, which, thoughclared, that if we have committed "errors, and wholly irrelevant to the present question, would these can be demonstrated, we shall be willing to correct them. If we have done injuries, we have a tendency, if allowed to pass uncontra-shall be willing, on conviction, to redress them." dicted, to render the people discontented with the government. Having concluded his remarks upon this subject, he proceeded thus: The scope and object of this amendment is to recommend it to the President, to offer certain concessions to France, in the negotiations which he has declared it his intention to commence. These concessions are understood to relate to the list of contraband, which is more extensive, as stated by the British treaty, than Can there be a spirit more conciliatory—or would gentlemen wish to see the negotiations conducted on other principles ? Is it to give information to the executive, to point out the course which the public good requires to be taken? But do gentlemen imagine that the executive is ignorant of the public interests, or less acquainted with it than the House? Is it not notorious that bodies of this kind are always unfit for negotiation? Have not the people declared it, by placing that power in the hands of the President? Can gentlemen suppose, that the House possesses, or can possess, all the information necessary, in forming an opinion about what ought to be given, and what ought to be required, in a negotiation with another nation? Can the House foresee all that may happen, to render this offer inexpedient, or useless, or unnecessary to justify other offers, or to make demands necessary, instead of offers of any kind? What will become of the power of negotiation in the executive, if the House is first to instruct him, and afterwards to censure him? Some gentlemen have seemed to think, that this amendment would give weight to the negotiation abroad; would strengthen the hands of the executive, and place him on higher ground. But how is this effect to be produced? By showing, it is answered, that, in making this offer, all the branches of government are united, and that the ground thus taken will be firmly supported. But must it not be perfectly evident, that the best way of giving this impression is, to pursue a conduct and hold a language, which will evince a perfect confidence in the Executive, and a determination to support him with the whole force and resources of the country? Then it is, that the offers of the executive will come with weight, when they come with evidence of union in the government, and of mutual confidence among the various departments. Some gentlemen have supported this amendment on the ground, that it will give confidence to the people of this country in the executive; and one gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Nicholas, has gone so far as to say, that the people of this country will not support the government, unless its measures are right. Admitting this opinion to be true (and I am inclined to think it may be), still it will remain to be inquired, by what means and on what standard the people would form their opinion of the propriety and wisdom of the measures pursued by their government. Not certainly from the declarations of that gentleman or his friends; because there has not been one measure adopted by the government, since its formation, which they have not opposed in the House and out of it, on which they have not set the stamp of their most decided censure; and yet, sir, we have seen all these measures supported and approved of by the people. We have seen the late President, who was in a peculiar manner the author of them, under whose auspices they were adopted and established, in spite of the most violent and persevering opposition from these very gentlemen-we have seen him surrounded with applauses, with gratitude, and with thanks, from every quarter of the Union; we have seen the wisdom and firmness of his administration made one very principal ground of these thanks and applauses; and even in a former House of Representatives, where the principles of these gentlemen did so greatly preponderate, when they moved to strike out of an address to this great man, a clause expressly approving his administration, as wise, firm, and greatly beneficial to his country, the motion was overruled by a very large majority; and when the address itself, containing this obnoxious clause, was put to the vote, it passed with only twelve nays. Yet gentlemen talk to us, as if they were the standard, by which the people would measure the conduct of government! Sir, the people are not truly estimated by those gentlemen. They are not the blind, ignorant herd, which those gentlemen take them to be. They will do in future, what they have always done heretofore-they will judge of the measures of government by the measures themselves, and by the just confidence which they have long placed in those whom they have appointed to administer it; not by the opinions or invectives of this or that set of men, either on this floor or out of doors. Gentlemen ought to be admonished, by the frequent and always unsuccessful appeals, which they have made to the people, to give up at length this vain chimera of being able to rule public opinion, with which they have so long suffered themselves to be deluded. I hold, sir, in my hand a paper, from that very quarter where gentlemen probably suppose, and not without appearance of reason, that their labors in the vineyard of opposition have been crowned with most success. It is an address from Mecklenburg county, in Virginia, to their representative on this floor, and contains sentiments so just, so truly patriotic, and so applicable to the point of confidence in government, that I cannot help reading it to the committee, though I am sensible it must have already attracted the notice of every individual. Mr. Harper then read the address. This paper, sir, affords a most consoling and honorable contrast to the speeches, which have lately been heard on this floor. It contains sentiments, which I have no doubt are reverberated from the hearts of every American in every part of the Union, and which prove how far the people, even that part of them on which these gentlemen have most particularly relied, are from sharing with them in their want of affection for the government, and of confidence in its measures. There is nothing in this address to prove, that the people in that part of the Union will refuse to support the government, unless those gentlemen should inform them that its measures were right. I also consider the recommendation, contained in this amendment, as extremely impolitic. Is it good policy to show the enemy your eagerness to treat, your eagerness to make concessions? Is it good policy to show to France, that you have no confidence in the executive, in his wisdom, his information, his patriotic intentions; that you think it necessary to instruct and direct him? Is it good policy to send the executive trammelled to France; to send him in a situation, where he must either yield to a | The have I any doubt that it will be tried. part of her demands, or go against the recom- As I believe this recommendation to be constitutional, useless and highly impolitic, I can never give my vote in its favor. I will now ask gentlemen, who may think the recommendation not improper, whether the measure recommended is entitled to their support? Why should it be entitled to support? Either because it is necessary, or because it is useful; because it is demanded by justice, or recommended by good policy. First, I ask them, how this measure, this concession to France, can be necessary? Do gentlemen contend, that this country is too weak to defend her rights; that it must yield to the demands of a foreign power, merely because those demands are made? I have not so understood them. Supple as their language has been, and submissive as their course of policy seems calculated to become, they have not yet bent thus low. But they have contended, that this concession is necessary, because it is right; because justice requires it. And how does justice require it? Because, according to them, having yielded these rights to England by our treaty with her, impartial justice requires, that we should yield them also to France. This argument rests on the ground that Briun-tain does not possess these rights by the law of nations, which point gentlemen have taken much pains, and made many elaborate dissertations, to establish. I shall not follow them through this long diplomatic discussion, which is much better suited to the department of State, and has there been handled in a very masterly and satisfactory manner. I believe, that when the official paper on this subject, lately published from the department of State, shall be read and compared with the speeches of gentlemen, very little doubt will remain on the point. I have another reason, too, for avoiding a dispute on the law of nations. Gentlemen seem disposed to treat the law, and the writers on it, with as little respect as the one and the other have received from the nation whose cause they advocate. One minister of that nation, in this country, has declared those writers to be no better than worm-eaten volumes, whose contents he was happy to have forgotten. Another, at Genoa, declared, that the French had taken up arms for the express purpose of subverting the law of nations. After this I should be almost afraid to cite writers If the measure were really necessary or useful, surely the executive is as well apprised of that necessity and utility, as well qualified to judge about it, as the House of Representatives; and the thing will be as well done by him alone, and will have as much effect, as if the House were to join in it: the claims of justice can be as completely satisfied in one case as in the other; the ends of policy as completely attained. Though I myself have very little reliance on the usefulness of the measure, and no conviction of its necessity, still I, for one, am perfectly willing that it should be tried by the executive, and perfectly willing that it should be effected, if the executive think fit. Neither |