Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

preferred was, that the President had not only added to the stipend, but allowed a sum as an outfit equal to a year's salary, though the person thus employed was then in England.

The question was proposed by a member of the House from Tennessee, (Mr. Blair,) who was in the ranks of the opposition to Mr. Adams; and who with many others, had yielded to a prevailing opinion, that the President was extravagant in the expenses of government. Mr. Forsyth of Georgia, vindicated the conduct both of the President, and the minister, Mr. King, in appointing one as Charge d'Affaires near the British government; and in an additional compensation to that fixed by law for a Secretary of Legation. But, if the President had allowed an outfit in this case, he expressed the opinion that it was improper. The majority or a full moiety of Congress, at that period, were disposed to scrutinize the conduct of the executive, in all instances; in the belief, or with the pretence, that the President did not strictly conform to the provisions of law, and was inclined to exercise too much discretion. The charge would lie, with far greater propriety, against the conduct of his successor, who often chose to assume responsibility, or to construe the constitution and the laws in accordance with his own views, and differently from the meaning given to them by former Presidents. And his political friends never failed to justify or excuse him; although they had, before his presidency, strenuously contended that the executive should have little discretion, and should do nothing but by authority of express law.

A bill was introduced in the Senate, by one of the members of that body, Mr. Dickerson, from New Jersey, for distributing a certain part of the public revenue among the several States. But the proposition was not received with much favor; and after a short discussion the bill was denied a second reading. The plan proposed was, instead of expending large sums of the public money for internal improvements by the federal government, as was then and the year before strongly urged, and in some cases voted, that a portion of the national revenue, particularly from sale of lands, should be distributed among the States for such purposes; leaving it with the individual States to apply it to the particular improvements which each respectively might prefer. The plan originated in a wish to maintain State power and rights, and to prevent great expenditures by the national government, which would nat

urally increase the influence and patronage of the governIt was contended also, that equal justice required

ment.

such a measure.

Great efforts were made again at this session of Congress for the passage of a law establishing a uniform system of bankruptcy. Mr. Hayne, of the Senate, from South Carolina, urged the adoption of a law for such a system with great ability and zeal; as Mr. Webster of Massachusetts, and others had before done in the House of Representatives; but the bill was opposed, on the pretence that it would operate particularly for the relief of merchants, and would be of no benefit to the other classes of citizens. The system could not have been injurious to the farmer or mechanic; and the objection that it was exclusively for the advantage of merchants, was therefore unreasonable. It was the suggestion of prejudice, or of narrow views; for it is the merchant and trader only who need such relief.

The subject of commercial intercourse with the colonies of Great Britain was also discussed at great length, during this session of the national legislature. It was one of peculiar interest and importance; for the trade with the British ports in the West Indies was so restricted by acts of Parliament, that it could be pursued with but little profit by the citizens of the United States. Each branch of the federal legislature had a bill prepared on the subject; and each was several times debated. They did not differ materially; but it was said in the House of Representatives, that the bill before the Senate did not fully protect the interests of the United States merchants trading to those ports; and no law was enacted as was proposed and expected. The difference might have been adjusted by a committee of conference of both Houses, as is usual in cases of disagreement; but this was not done in season, and the close of the session prevented it. And on the 17th of March, by virtue of a law passed three years before, the President declared, by proclamation, that the trade with those ports was prohibited; as the discriminating duties of the British government had not been removed. The proclamation of the executive, on this subject, referred to an act of Congress of March, 1823, which permitted the trade between the United States and the British ports in the West Indies to be free and unembarrassed, so long as the latter should be open to American vessels, without additional duties, but, on an interdiction by the British government, of their colonial ports to vessels of the United States, authorizing the President to make such public proclamation; and an order of his Britannic

majesty in council had been issued in July, 1826, prohibiting after December then next-and now passed-the trade and intercourse with those ports to American vessels. These various acts of interdiction, restricting the trade to the West Indies belonging to Great Britain, operated injuriously to the citizens of the United States. But the executive of the federal government had made repeated attempts to regulate the trade on terms more favorable, and in a conciliating and magnanimous spirit towards the government of Great Britain.

The conduct of the State of Georgia, at this period, towards the Indians within its territorial limits, was such as to threaten a direct and forcible collision between that State and the federal government. The government of that State claimed lands, then and formerly occupied by the original tribes, and the entire control and authority over them; though they remained on their lands by the consent of the general government, and treaties had been made with them, promising them protection, until the terms for their removal should be adjusted. The government of Georgia complained that they did not remove, or were not forcibly removed by the federal executive. That State also insisted on a compliance with an agreement, by treaty, with some of the chiefs of the Creek Indians, and then the principal tribe within that State; but which the majority of the tribe highly disapproved; and which was superceded and annulled by a treaty made the year following, with the proper agents or chiefs of the tribe, and was also ratified by the President and Senate of the United States. The latter compact was more favorable to the Indians, as it gave them more time to remove, and engaged the support of the federal government until their voluntary removal. The executive of Georgia ordered a survey of the lands in dispute, and occupied by the Indians, contrary to the wishes and rights of the tribe; and committed or threatened. acts of encroachment which were highly offensive to the Creek nation. And, on their application to the executive of the nation, the United States troops were ordered to protect them, and to prevent encroachments on their possessions. The governor of Georgia called on the militia to defend the State, and to be ready to carry into effect his orders, either against the Creek Indians, or the troops of the United States. His language and conduct were of a very menacing character. He impugned all authority of the federal government in the case, and assumed the right to treat the Indian tribe according to his will, and that of the

legislature of Georgia. His letters to the federal executive were indecorous, if not insolent; and such as had never been used by the governor of a State to the chief magistrate of the Union.* Owing to the united firmness and prudence of the President, the difficulty was cured without resort to military force. The message of the President to Congress, on the subject, was committed in the House of Representatives to a select committee, and a report made the day following the last day of the session-recommending the adoption of two resolutions, viz. "That it is expedient to procure a cession of the Indian lands in the limits of Georgia-and, that until a cession is procured, the laws of the land, as set forth in the treaty of Washington, ought to be maintained by all necessary, constitutional, and legal There was also a report of the minority of the committee asserting "the right of Georgia to the soil and jurisdiction of the Indian lands within its limits—that the survey of those lands by Georgia was not improper-that the treaty at the Indian Springs, not having been constitutionally repealed, the rights of Georgia under it were unimpaired; and that the President be requested to extinguish the claim of the Creek Indians to lands in Georgia, not comprehended in the treaty of Washington."

The Governor of Georgia contended for the validity and execution of the treaty at Indian Springs, (made the preceding year, which was favorable to the claims and wishes of that State for getting possession of the Indian lands,) but which being disapproved by the majority of the Creek tribe living there, had been set aside and annulled, by adopting a different treaty, the following year. Georgia claimed the fulfilment of the terms of the former treaty, while the federal executive insisted on observing the terms of the second agreement. When, therefore, the executive of Georgia ordered surveys of the Indian lands, in opposition to the will of the Creek tribe, and contrary to the provisions of the second compact, the President, on complaint and request of the heads of that tribe, sent agents to desire the governor of Georgia to desist, and promised protection to the Creeks, according to engagements in the last treaty.

* In a letter to the Secretary of War, dated February 17, 1827, Governor Troup, says, "You will distinctly understand, that I feel it my duty to resist to the utmost any military attack, which the government of the United States shall think proper to make on the territory, the people, or the sovereignty of Georgia; and all measures necessary to the performance of this duty, according to our limited means, are in progress. From the first decisive act of hostility, you will be considered and treated as a public enemy. "

He also notified the governor of Georgia, that if the military power should be employed by that State to enforce the order for a survey, he should feel obliged, under the sanction of a law of 1802 on the subject, and also by an obligation higher than any human authority, to repel the force, and to protect the Indians in their rights, as recognized in the last treaty made with them.

The message of the President to Congress, on this subject, produced a great excitement; and was censured, by members from Georgia and Alabama, as rash and tending to an open and forcible collision between the United States and the State of Georgia. But a large majority supported the views and conduct of the President, and disapproved of the proceedings of the governor of Georgia. Surely he could not justly be charged with rashness, in preferring, as he did, a civil and judicial process to a military force, to settle the difficulty; and his declaration to employ force if necessary to protect the tribe, was sanctioned by the Constitution and law. The expression "of yielding to an obligation higher than that of any human authority," was considered by some as unnecessary, if not improper; as the President of the Union should know no authority, in his official civil acts, above or beyond that of law and the Constitution.

A proposition was made in the House of Representatives to reimburse to those persons, who had been fined for violations of the sedition law of 1798, the amount which they had paid, and an indemnity for loss of time, &c. The object appeared to be a public expression of the opinion that the law was arbitrary and unconstitutional, as well as a desire to indemnify those who had been subjected to pecuniary punishment. But the proposition was not received with favor by the majority of the House; and the object of the mover was not attained. The majority were evidently convinced of the inexpediency of passing any law on the subject; especially, at a period so long after the obnoxious law had ceased to be in force. By rejecting the motion, at an early day after it was offered, a discussion, at once unpleasant and useless, was happily prevented.

Another effort was made at this Congress, to allow compensation to the officers of the continental army, who continued in service till the close of the war of the Revolution, and were promised half pay for life, by the old Congress, in the year 1781. But the effort was unsuccessful at that time; owing in part to the shortness of the session, and in part to a want of agreement among those in favor of some

« ZurückWeiter »