Newspaper Page Text
SOUTHERN RECORDER.
B Y GRANTLAND & ORME.
MILLEDGEVILLE. GEORGIA, SATURDAY, JUNE 19, 1*30.
■■ ■ U'T ■■ ■ T mai^«ilam~^—
No. 21 or Vol. XI.
•n.« RccoSDXR is published weekly, on Han-
'' , between Wayne and Jefferson, at Three
in advanc., or Four Dol-
"•Wot paid before the end ofthe year.
u r><<iMKNTiooa*tncuothdy inserted at the ustt
11 v Theme sent without a specification of the
'Crtf ia«“io«s. wili be published until ordered
' ^„n*s?d C t."l n°e r groesfi>y Administrators, Exe-
j n r Guardians, are required by law to bo held
.. Tncfldnv in tlm month,between the hours of
till 1 first sltvaa in tlia nTtaPimnn at ike
ihe forenoon and three in the nfternoon, at the
0 f the county in which the property-is si-
Notices of these sales must he given in a pub-
£";,e stxTV days irevious to the day of sale.
ofthe sale of personal property must tie glv-
ike manner, FORT? dnys previous to the Hny of
" h.,, n „ticc to the debtors and creditors of an
* .nnst'lie published for foutt days.
.hat application will he made to the Court of
linary ft* leave to sell land, must be published for
iMtshtw" in the line of PrintinB, will meet with
All
I.ktters (on business! must be post paid.
CONGRESS.
OUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
April 26.
SPEECH OF MR. McDUFFIE.
[continued.]
Mr. Chairmam, the Southern States,
ctuuted by tlmt uncalculating patriotism
r which they have always been distin-
uislied, have submitted, without a single
urmer, to a system of taxation which
as'drnwn from the productions of their
idiistry, at least, double the amount of
leir just contribution to the federal tren-
ury. But, Sir, when they find an inter-
sted majority “ which feels power and
,rgets right,” steadily niming the itnpe-
ial ban of the prohibitory system at the
bsolute annihilation of that very branch
f commerce which has so largely and
^proportionately contributed to support
3 expenses of the Federal Government
when they find that majority, confident
the strength of numbers, openly and
ildly avowing the unjust, and l had nl-
•>st said, nefarious and piratical purpose,
• sweeping from the very face of the o-
:an a lawful branch of trade, which al-
ost exclusively belongs to the people of
liese States—it is time for them to rise up
the majesty of their rights, and demand,
n the name of the principles of eternal
ustice and of constitutional liberty, “ by
linn authority do you commit this mon-
trails outrage.’”
Sir, I never have been an advocate of
trict limitations or technical refinements
a construing the Constitution. I have
always interpreted that instrument, ns I
would any other, by its plain sense and
obvious intention, having regard both to
the letter and spirit. Taking these for
my guide, I utterly deny that Congress has
the constitutional power to carry on a le
gislative warfare, either open or disguis
ed, against any branch of foreign com
merce, with n view to the advancement
of any other branch of national industry.
I know, Sir, that I shnll he asked if Con
gress have not the power of laying impost
duties for the purpose of raising revenue,
and also the power of “ regulating com
merce with foreign nations and to these
questions I answer in the affirmative. I
sh ill be then asked, how it would be pos
sible for the Supreme Court to pronounce
a law of Congress unconstitutional which
purports, upon the face of it, to be a re
venue measure, or a measure for the regu
lation of commerce 1 To this I answer,
that the Supreme Court could not, and
would not, pronounce such a law uncon
stitutional, because'they cannot look into
the motives of the legislature. But, Sir,
a law or u system of laws, calculated and
designed to destroy commerce, or any
branch of it, is not the less unconstituti
onal because the Supreme Court cannot
pronounce it to be so. It is not a questi
on of which that court could take cogni
zance. it turns upon great political prin
ciples, which would be entirely out of
place in a mere technical argument before
a judicial tribunal, but which this body is
under the inns! solemn obligations to re
gard in all its proceedings.
As no one now pretends that these pro
hibitory ditties are imposed for the purpose
°f raising revenue, I shall proceed to in
quire how far they can be justified by the
clause of the Constitution, which author-
*zc9 Congress “to regulute commerce with
foreign nations.” What then was the ob
ject of the Convention in cloalhing Con
gress with this power to regulate foreign
commerce I I put it to the conscience of
every member of this body, upon the high
responsibility under which he is acting,
to answer me the question, whether this
tably calculated, and openly and avowed
ly intended, not only to suspend for an
indefinite time, but utterly to abolish and
destroy, forever, a great branch of com
merce belonging to eight sovereign States
of this confederacy? There is nothing,
Sir, either in history or fable, that can be
compared with this most unnatural and
monstrous perversion of power. The ve
ry commerce which this government was
created to preserve, and which it is under
the clearest and most solemn constitution
al obligations to protect and defend n-
gainst all foreign outrage, is actually de
stroyed by the Government which was cre
ated to preserve it, and professing to act
under a power evidently conferred for no
other purpose! Yes, Sir, nnd to add
mockery to the outrage, Congress very
modestly claims the title of a parental and
protecting Government, for the very act
of sacrificing that commerce which it is
bound to preserve, to build up on its ruins
a distinct branch of industry—domestic
manufactures—which the constitution has
not committed to the guardianship of the
Federnl Government in any respect what
ever. The monster which should devour
his own offspring, would not commit a
greater outrage against nature, than this
body is thus perpetrating against the Con
stitution under which it assumes to net,
and from which only it can derive any le
gitimate authority. The only cause which
can justify Congress in imposing restricti
ons and prohibitions upon commerce, is
the violation, by foreign powers, of those
principles of international law which are
the guarantee of our commercial and o-
ther sovereign rights as a nation ; and the
only constitutional object to whtch these
restrictions and prohibitions can be direct
ed, is to induce or constrain foreign pow
ers to repeal the regulations or abandon
the course of action by which our nation
al rights are violated. This Government
was principally designed, by its framers,
to concentrate the whole power of the con
federacy for the purpose of resisting the
aggressions^of foreign nations upon our
rights on the ocean. If no such aggres
sion has been committed, if all our rights
of commerce and navigation a*e secure
under the protection of the law of nations,
eveu from apprehended encroachments,
then, Sir, I maintain that the case has not
occurred in which this Government may
rightfully interpose its power to vindicate
the sovereign rights of the confederacy,
either by military force or legislative re
strictions and prohibitions.
I will now illustrate my views on this
subject, by a brief examination of the em
bargo of 1807, a measure too memorable
to have been forgotten, & with the history
of which, 1 take it for granted, every mem
ber of the committee is familiar. It is a
well known fact, that an entire political
party, constituting a decided majority of
the peoplo of New England, and headed
by men of very distinguished talents and
great political experience, denounced the
measure in question as an unconstitution
al perversion of the power to regulate
commerce. 1 believe, Sir, that every pub
lic functionary, from the chief Executive
downwards, and every department of the
Government, in almost every New Eng
land State, solemnly pronounced the em
bargo law unconstitutional. There never
was a political party arrayed against this
Government with more unanimity upon
any question, than were the Federal par
ty of New England upon the unconstitu
tionality of that measure. Now, Sir,
what was the ground upon which it was
contended that the embargo was uncon
stitutional ? I have recently heard that
ground stated, from a high authority, in
a speech delivered not far off, in which the
i<lea seemed still to be maintained. The
ground was this: that the embargo law
contained no limitation upon its face, and
was, therefore, an indefinite suspension of
commerce. To suspend commerce in
definitely, is to destroy it; nnd the power
to regulate commerce does not confer the
right to destroy it. Such, Sir, was the ar
gument, as I understand it. Though it is
certainly a plausible nnd imposing argu
ment, I do not think it a sound one. It
entirely overlooks the cause which induc
ed Congress to pass the embargo law, and
the object to accomplish which it was en
acted, both of them considerations essen
tial to the correct determination of the
question of constitutionality. Let it be
remembered that the belligerent powers of
Europe had committed a series of outra-
Ve8U5d "* C °T eSS for the ges upon our national a^d commerda,
40 e ail ' i exclusive purpose of preserving,! S. , P -i—«>«.»
protecting and defending the very com'
meree which it proposes to regulate ? No
°»c. I am sure, enn seriously believe that
'here is any other legitimate object for
which this power can have been confer
red, or for which it can be rightfully exer
cised. By constituting Congress the guar
dian of our foreign commerce, the con
stitution has imposed upon that body the
high duty of extending its protecting arm
equally and impartially to every lawful
branch of that commerce. No restricti
on, therefore, can be lawfully and consti
tutionally imposed upon the foreign trade
ot any pq r t of this Union, that has not
fur its object the preservation, security or
improvement of the very branch of trade
upon which it is imposed. Any man who
Will look into the history of the times
*hich immediately preceded the Federal
Convention, will be satisfied that the great
object of convoking that assembly and of
crenti :g this Government, was to provide
fer the security of our foreign commerce,
"hat language then can be used strong
onough to characterize thos& prohibitory
regulations of Congress which are inevi-
rights, in open violation of the clearest
principles of the law of nations. Here,
then, was an undoubted case for theVon-
stitutional interposition of the power of
the Federal Government. The cants
faderis of the constitutional compact, had
evidently occurred. The rights of the ci
tizens were violated by foreign powers,
and this Government, having in charge
the foreign relations of the country, was
not only authorised to vindicate those
rights by commercial restrictions, but e-
ven by war itself—-the last resort of injur
ed nations; Indeed, the embargo was a
war measure in all its material character
istics, viewed in reference either to its
causes or its objects.
And what, Sir, was the end, the final
end, which Congress proposed to accom
plish by the embargo? Was there a man
in America at the time —is there, n man in
America at present, so far gone in the de
lusions of party prejudice, as to believe
that Mr. Jefferson, in recommending the
embargo, or Congress in adopting it, aim
ed at the permanent destruction of com
merce, or of any branch of it, as the ul
timate and final end of that measure ? It
will hardly be doubted, nt this day, that
the sole and exclusive object which the
Government had in view, in this tempora
ry suspension of foreign commerce, was
to compel the beligerent powers to relieve
that very commerce from the shackles and
restrictions which they hnd thrown around
it, contrary to the law of nations, and in
violation of the sovereign rights of the U.
States. I am decidedly of the opinion,
therefore that the embargp was a consti
tutional measure; but I am very far from
believing that it was a wise one.
Let us, now, Mr. Chairman, see how
the prohibitory nets of 1824 nnd 1828, will
stand a comparison with the embargo of
1807, in regard to the two essential requi
sites of a constitutional regulation of com
merce—I mean a sufficient cause, and o
justifiable object. What, then, wns the
cause of these two prohibitory acts? Was
it pretended foreign power had violated
our rights, by imposing restrictions upon
our commerce not warranted by the law of
nations? So far from this being the case,
the only measure of a foreign power which
hns been.alleged ns n motive for a prohi
bitory tariff’ on our part, is the prohibition
of foreign grain by Great Britain; a tneu-
sure as highly npplnnded, as it was un
wisely imitated by the advocates of the
prohibitory system in this country. It wns
not to vindicate nnv violated right, then,
that the acts of 1824 and 1828 were pas
sed, and thus far they want the justifying
cause that existed in the case of the em
bargo. What, then, is the object, the fi
nal end, which these acts propose to ac
complish? Are they intended to compel
any foreign power to abandon restrictions
injurious to our commercial rights, or e-
ven detrimental to our commercial inter
ests ? This will scarcely be pretended.—
The only foreign restrictions which has
been alleged ns an interfernnee with our
commerce, is that imposed by the British
Corn Laws.
Now, will it be seriously argued, that
the manufacturers of the United States,
are anxious to induce or constrain Greut
Britain to repeal her corn laws. Will a-
ny man in this House hazard the asserti
on, that the prohibitory duties imposed by
Congress were designed to produce such
an effect ? Nothing, Sir, wns more re
mote from the wishes of those by whom
these duties were imposed. When the
subject of negociating a commercial trea
ty with Great Britnin, providing for a re
ciprocal free trade between the two coun
tries, was agitated some months ago in
the public journals, in what tone and
temper was it denounced by the advocates
ofthe manufacturing interest? And when
a bill wns reported a few days ago, by the
Committee, proposing to effect the same
object, in a partial degree, by legislation,
what an electric terror seemed to run
through the ranks of the tariff’ party in this
House.”
No measure could be adopted by any
foreign government, and particularly by
that of Great Britain, that would be more
earnestly deprecated by the friends of the
protecting system in this country, than an
unconditional repeal of all commercial re-
strictions. If the British Parliament were
about to abolish the corn laws, the,manu
facturers of the United States—if there
was any disguise in which they could pre
sent themselves—-would pray for a conti
nuance of those laws as devoutly ns the
British landlords. Their repeal, Sir,
would be the most fatal blow that could
be inflicted on the manufacturers in this
country, next to the repeal of our own
prohibitory duties. What would be the
effect of this repeal upon the competition
between the British and American manu
facturers ? While it would diminish the
price of grain one half iu Great Britain,
and produce a corresponding reduction
in the price of labor, and consequently
in the cost of manufactures, it would pro
duce an effect almost precisely opposite in
the United States. It is an established
principle of political economy in Great
Britain, founded upon the actual conditi
on of the laboring classes, that every rise
or fall in the price of grain, produces a
rise or fall in the price of labor, almost
exactly equal to increased or diminished
cost of food for the laborer. This results
from the fact, that the laborer is reduced
to the minimum of human subsistence.—
His employer will not give him more, and
cannot give him less. A reduction in the
price of corn, therefore, from two dollars
to one dollar a bushel—an effect which
would probably result from the repeal of
the British corn laws—would reduce the
price of labor 25 per cent, and the cost of
producing manufactures 12£ per cent.—
This would be equivalent to a bounty to
the British manufacturers, in their com
petition with those of the United States,
while the latter would experience the disad
vantage resulting from the increased price
of grain, and consequently of labor, in
this country, proceeding from the same
cause. That I have not overrated the ef
fect of the repeal of the corn laws of
Great Britain, may be inferred from the
fact, that a very intelligent writer in that
country, has expressed the opinion, that
the productive industry of the nation
would be hs much relieved by the aboli
tion of the corn laws, as it would by the
total extiuguisment of the public debt.—
It would be absurd to suppose, therefore,
that the tariff, of 1824 and 1828, were de
signed to produce a repeal of the British
corn laws. It follows that there is noth
ing, either in the causes which gave rise
to those measures, or the objects they
were designed to accomplish, at all con
nected with the foreign relations of the
country, or of a nature to give them any
pretension to be considered constitutional
regulations of commerce.
What, then, was the real cause, and
what the real object, of the prohibitory
laws of 1824 ond 1828 ? Did they pro
ceed from any commercial regulation of
foreign powers, injurious to the rights or
interests which hnve been committed by
the Constitution to the guardianship of
this Government ? Assuredly they were
not. Were they intended to foster nnd
protect any branch of our foreign com
merce, or any other national interest en
trusted to the protection of Congress ?—
The very reverse, Sir. It cannot he dis
guised, indeed it hns been openly avowed,
that they were intended for no other pur
pose than to annihilate, not for a season,
hut for all time, a lawful branch of com
merce which Congress is constitutionally
bound to prolcet, in order to build up on
its ruins nnothcr branch of industry with
which Congress hns no more right to in
terfere, than with the parish poor-rates.
I nsk you then, 8ir, in the name of the
Constitution, and of the principles of c-
ternnl justice, what right lias Congress—
what right can any human government
possess—to destroy the interests of one
entire section of this confederacy, to pro
mote the interests of the other sections ?—
What right hnve you—I put the question
to the majority of tins House, in the name
of all the people of the Southern States
—what right have you to lay your hands
upon our property—upon that which is
ours by the highest of till enrthly titles—
the blessing of God upon our own ho
nest industry ; nnd arbitrarily appropriate
it to your own use, or to that of your con
stituents? No frenk of tyranny, ever
committed by nn absolute despot, can ex
ceed this outrage upon the principles of
natural justice, which you are perpetrat
ing under the perverted powers utid pros
tituted forms of a free government.
We have an undoubted unturnl right to
the enjoyment of that commerce, which
you are now engaged in the unrigheous
work of sweeping from the great high
way of nations. Superadded to this na
tural right, we have a constitutional right
to call upon the majority of Congress, as
the special gunrdinns of this very com
merce, to guarantee the enjoyment of it,
not only against tfie lawless pirates of the
ocean, but against the injurious regulnti
means of encouraging manufactures; it is
in some views the best. * * •
“ It is a species of encouragement raofe
positive and direct than any other, and
men! who** diplomatic records are disgraced ttf
compacts to Monopolise the horrible profits of tbs
slave trade; the record* f whose legislation are
atnined by nets to legitimate end regfthrtt that hats-
Ail truffle; the Minister of a Government which
•>ns of foreign States. And it is in this Massachusetts, for example, will not tax
for that very reason, hns a more iminedi- j ha* but just emancipated alargv povlon of Ns
ate tendency to stimulate and uphold new J "*‘ '~ l “ J A ***■
enterprises. * * * * *
“ It avoids the inconvenience of a tem
porary augmentation of price, which is
incident to some other modes, or it pro
duces it in a less degree, either by mak
ing no addition to the charges on the ri
val foreign article, as in the case of pro
tecting duties, or by making a similar ad
dition.” * • * • *
“ As often ns n duty upon a foreign ar
ticle makes an addition to its price, it
causes mi extra expense to the communi
ty, for tlio benefit of the domestic manu
facturer. A bounty does no more.”
These quotations are perfectly conclu
sive, ns to the superior efficacy of pecuni
ary bounties over protecting duties, as a
mentis of encouraging domestic manufac
tures. I will add an additional advantage,
which the advocates of the bill before us
will not surely regard as unimportant—
The protection given by these bounties
cannot be evaded by smuggling or by false
invoices. This, of itself, would seem to
be perfectly decisive in favor of the boun
ty system. Under that system, sir, there
would be no occasion for creating custom
house inquisitions nnd arbitrary appraise
ments. How, then, hns it come to pass
that, while the manufacturers have been,
for more than ten years past, clamoring
at our doors for prelection, the Legislature
of no single State in the Union, so fnr as
I nm informed, has ever appropriated a
cent, or mined a finger, to sustain these
langtiiidiing and suffering interests, which
certaiidy have a claim upon the StaicsVor
protection, if indeed they may hnve any
claim at all ? Sir, 1 have frequently put
this question in former discussions upon
the floor, nnd hnve never found a man
boltl enough to answer it. The advo
cates of the protecting system hnve inva
riably passed it over with a prudent nnd
profound silence. The reason is obvious
No man dnre to avow openly the true
cause why the manufacturing States, hav
ing the undoubted power, will not extend
any protection to their own manufactu
rers, but send them to Congress for re
lief.
The moral sense of this nation would
not tolerate the avowal, that the State of
state of our mutual rights and obligations,
that this majority are carrying on a sys
tern of legislative piracy—degrading the
Government from its high estate, and re
ducing it from the sacred relation it ought
to bear to nil the interests of the Union,
into a disgraceful confederacy with sea
rubbers and outlaws. Sir, this is no pic
ture of the imagination ; for 1 solemnly
declare that I would rnthcr, as a South
ern planter, take my chance, unaided by
the public nrm, against all the pirates that
ever invested the great deep, than to he
subject to the comprehensive and desola
ting sweep of the prohibitory system.
And now, hnving shewn that the ten
dency and object of this system is to con
fiscate the commerce of the South, under
the false and delusive pretext of regulat
ing it, and to appropriate the proceeds of
the properly thus confiscated and con
demned by the high admiralty of this sys
tem of plunder, to the special nnd exclu
sive uses of the Northern capitalists, I
beg leave to call the attention of the com
mittee to a view of this subject, well cal
culated to develope and illustrate the true
genius nnd character of the system.
The representatives of the manufactur
ing and tariff States allege, thnt they have
large nnd extensive manufacturing estab
lishments, which it is their interest and
their right to encourage and protect, and
deny the right of the Southern represen
tatives to interfere with their protecting
policy. Now, Sir, ns a Southern repre
sentative, I claim no right to interfere
with nny protection, which any portion of
the Southern States may choose to ex
tend, at their own expense, to their own
manufactories. All I pretend to claim is
the right to put my veto upon this scheme
of injustice and plunder, by which the
property, the rightful and exclusive pro'
perty, of my constituents, is uncoustitu'
tionally npplied to that object.
There cannot be n proposition more
self-evidently just and equitnble, than
that those States in which the manufac
turing establishments are situated, should
bear the burthen of protecting them.—
Can a man be found, sir, in this House or
out of it, who would have the boldness to
contest this position ? Then why do not
the manufacturing States protect their
own manufacturers ? Will it be pretend
ed that they have not the constitutional
power ? Has not the Legislature of every
State in the Union, an unlimited power
to impose taxes upon the people of the
State, and appropriate the proceeds, in
the form of bounties, for the protection of
domestic manufactures, or any other
branch of domestic industry t No man
of common information—no man, indeed,
of common sense, will deny that every
State Legislature has this power. Why,
then is it not exercised ? Is the protecti
on it would afford less direct and efficient
than that which is afforded by the impo
sition of high impost duties 1 I will an
swer this questiou in the language of a
man to whom the manufacturers Imre al
ways looked, as to an oracle—I mean Al
exander Hamilton. Speaking of “ pe
cuniary bounties” he suvs:—“ This hns
been found one of the ofiwqjpus
her own citizens to afford protection to her
own manufactures, because the Federal
Government can he made the unrighteous
instrument of taxing the people of the
Southern States for the purpose of afford
ing (hat protection.
This, sir, disguise it as gentlemen may,
is the true question involved in the pro
tecting systrm. The tariff States would
permit every establishment within their li
mits to sink into utter ruin before they
would levy taxes from their own citizens
to nourish and sustain them. Tlmt would
lie too plain and palpable n proceeding.
It would instantly open the eyes, of the
People to the true character of the pro
tecting system. It would tear off from
the monster the veil which conceals its
horrible deformity, and brenk its infatuat
ing chnrm forever. If the protection af
forded to the manufacturers by this Go
vernment were entirely withdrawn to-mor
row, I do not believe there is a State Le'
gislature in the Union, that would dare to
substitute an equivalent protection in the
form of pecuniary bounties drawn from
the People of the States, and appropriat
ed from the public treasury. Nothing thnt
could be possibly suggested, in the wuy
of argument, would exhibit the palpable
injustice of this system in so strong a light
as the course, pursued, iu this respect, by
the legislatures of the tariff States.—
Would nny man believe, sir, that the legis
lature of n sovereign State would memo
rialize Congress to protect the manufac
tures of thnt State, by imposing restricti
ons'and duties upon the commerce of o-
tlter States when the Legislature having
the admitted power to protect those ma
nufactures, utterly neglects to do it ? Yet
such was the conduct of the Legislature
of Massachusetts ; and such is, substanti
ally, the course pursued by the Legisla
tures of all the tariff States.
[To be concluded ra our next.']
—:nooo:—
IN THE SENATE OF THE U. STATES,
Amu., 1890.
SPEECH OF Mr. FORSYTH, of Georgia.
IcONCLODBbV]
I Teel the indulgence of the Senate ip the adjourn,
ment of yesterday to enable me to finish my re
marks—remarks that ought to have been, and
would have been, then terminated, but for the un
expected delay produced by the transaction of
Executive business. Apology, for any timel could
occupy, would be misplaced. It cannot be expec
ted from me. The Slate of Georgia ha* been made
so prominent, so wautonly prominent is this dis
cussion, that any thing and every thing that can
be said by her Representatives in this body would
be excused and justified. Peculiarly appropriate
to our conditiun is the language of Cassius, who
was
“ Hated bv those he lorod;
Braved by his brother; checked like a bondman;
All his faults observed; set ia a note book
Learned and conned by rote, to cast into bis teeth.*'
If Socrates waa right when he said that it ia good
to have calumniators, since, if thay say the truth,
we may correct our faults, if not, H does no feint,
we ought to bo vory thankful to Ihoao, who, by put
ting us under a course of moral hist ruction, an
striring to make us perfect, hs this Halt, ia the
Representative Chamber, id every corner of tho
country, whereapartiooa newspaper is to bo found,
wo are discussed without meesura and abused
without mercy. This is net all; we are important
enough t attract aUentiea ht transatlantic as*
bites. Tho Chapel of St. Stephens has lately
sounded with the namo of Georgia. Oa the
cuesion of the qwetion of universal ifldrai*.
have been quoted and condemned by a Min'
ofimperfel ffriuio-th* Minister of fit "
subjects, distinguished for wealth, intelligence, add
integrity, from odious, political, and elvil disabili
ties. f unded solely on the color of their religiohf
creed; the Minister of a Government, a company
of whose merchants owns an empire of slaves; da
empire gained by n succession of crimes, lilafifc
enough to make the sun turn pple, were its Messed
beams affected by human turpitude! the Minister
of a Government, in whose Colbnial dependence*
a black man is delivered oter to the discretion of
Mi master, aod torture and death inflicted upon
him is estimated in pounds and shillings, has had
the effrontery, in the free of the British nation,
and of the world, to upbraid Georgia Ibr enact'
ments to prevent the danger* of servile insurrec
tion—a danger to which we arv exposed by the
peculiar character of a part of our population, a
population fixed upon uc by the avarice of Bri
tain's self.
The reproach wa* worthy of its nuthor. A
Minister of (he House of Brunswick with the prin
ciples of s Jacnhtf) the virulent opponent of Cd-
tholic emancipation, while oppoeition was coast*,
tent with the retention of his place In the Ministry!
the eloquent advocate of Catholic emancipation
when plxce was in danger, was true to himself and
to his vocation, while censuring one of the State*
of this Republic. We may live, Sir, to see thit
opponent of universal suffrage its advocate. If
the great Captain should again give the w rd of
command, “to the right about, ftice," we ntay
hear of a splendid argument, founded upon the
safety and tranquillity of theempite; we may see
recorded, opinions abandoned for piece, in favor
of universal suffrage. Should this second miracle
be worked by the onnqeerorof Waterloo, I trust
we shall bo spared the praise of life eon vert. Hie
censure we shall bear without resentment. Hie
praise would be intolerable. But, Sir, what done
the wretch deserve, who, copy!' g into the columns
of his newspaper in this country the discussions of
Parliament, adds to tl|is speech of the Home Se
cretary, part "My of the reply of the great leader
of the opposition, to induce a belief thnt the sp
posing champioi s united In pour out the finis af
their wrath upon our heeds in one undivided stream!
when, in fact, the great advocate (Brougham) al
though condemning the spirit of our law, pointed,
in marked terms, to the necessity of our condition,
and taunted hit advertary with the inconsistency
of his condemnation of the Gec-gia laws, while
the atrocious code of Jamaica was suffered to re
main in force! The truth, the whole truth suite
not the purposes of editorial malignity. They un
derstand how to suggest falsehoud, by the sup
pression of truth, when the object is to deceive,
by making a false impression upon the public
mind. If we should feel a strong Indignation at
these, ti similar • ff rls here, to prejudice th<- pub
lic mind—to degrade the character of our Stale; If,
under the influence of this indignation, we should
pour out our souls in torrents of hitter invective
against our artful opponents, we might hope to
stand excused before the throne of the giver of
life, Erring man, the child, and, but too often, the
victim of passion, could not condemn us.
But, Sir, I must not be withdrawn from my pur
pose, by the dishonorable artifices of editors of A-
merican newspapers, by the arts of Senatorial in
genuity, or by the uncalled for and grossly incon
sistent erasures of a British minister. I traced,
yesterday, the history of tbe execution of the com
pact of 1802 to the period when the Creek tribe
was reateved from our territory. The Cherokee*,
having been foiled in their efforts to control the
Creek movements, sought to strengthen thrmselvee
in their position, by forming Is publishing n Con'
stilution. A few white men and half breed* were
the author* of thie scheme—a scheme, hateful ie
many of the Indians, who desired to c unteract
It. The half breeds and whites, having Die funds
of the tribe, were able to retain the power in their
hands, and they p ocertled to convert Citisen* of
the United States into Cherokees, by tlie short and
simple process of marriage or adoption. Thi*
decisive evidence of the intention of the Cherokees,
to perpetuate themielvea as sovereigns within the
sovereignty of Georgia, attracted the immediate
attention of the F.iecutive of the Slate. Trana-
milting a copy of the Cherokee Constitution to the*
President of the United Stales, and calling to hif
recollection the provision in the Constitution which
forbade the erection of any new Stale within the
jurisdiction of any ther Slate, and the fonrlation
of any State by the junction of two or more Slate*,
or parts of States, without the consent of the le
gislatures of the State* concerned, as well a* of
the Congress, inquiry was made what measure bad
been adopted, or was contemplated, to vindicate
the outraged sovereignty of the States of North
Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama —
This inquiry wRS not deemed worthy of an answer.
The respect due to the Slate not being strong e-
nougli tu tempt the Executive of the Union to di
rect his mind to this subject, an inquirr was mad*
in the House of Representatives by Mr. VFildx,
of Georgia. The resolqtion of inquiry was offer
ed on the 21st of Febtuary, 1828, modtfledon the
22d at the suggestion of Mr. 3torus, of New Turk,
laid on the table on motion of Mr. WtcKurra, of
Kentucky, takeo up on the 20th, modified by Mr.
WiLDt, who introduced it, laid on tbe table on mo
tion of Mr. Storks, taken up nnd pasted on the
3d of March. Tbe answer to this resolution dis
closed these facts: that tho Cherokee Constitution
had been communicated to the War Department
in November, 1828, by the Commissioners, Cocke
and Davidson; by tho G ver.ior of Georgia, hi
January, 1820, with his letter of inquiry; but, that
the hou. Secretary had not tuuud leisure to give
hit attention to thit subject, until tbe 23d of Febru
ary, 1820. two day* after the call for iuformatisn
was proposed ia Congrem The letter of the Se
cretary to the Cherokee Agent, bears date on that
day. Had not the resolution of inquiry keen ec>!
cidtntally delayed in Its progress through the'
House, tho Secretary would have had no tuna to,
devote to the subject until after Congress had actetl,
upon it. But what was the determiaatio of Gov.,
eminent, as disdoeed in this extorted leMar of tbe
Secretary to the Cherokee agent! The agent waft
directed to inform the Chernaias, that the f rasa-,
lion of their Constitution would produce an chute*
in < heir relation* with tho Called Staton. The
feet of this Delphic antwur nn Georgia pad the
Cherokees, might ban* been, and an doubt was,
anticipated. The Cherokee* natlryeWod the reo-
ponse of the oracin as fhvorahl* to their wishes -
The State understood that tho Adasiahtrathm had
resolved not to interfere; to leave the Cherokee*
to make tbe most of their case befbro the tribunal
of public opinion; to aid thorn, If aid should bo
found popular; in aoevsnt, to act with Georgia,
unless controlled by circumstances.
Thus, Mr. President, after thela. se of 98 years,
after large pecuniary sacrifices, sad the more im
portant sacrifice af political can sequence, to avoid
irritating nqd perottaiag questions between tin.
Stale and Federal Government, wo feaadoarsalmo
compelled to submit to the intraafeo aoveraigaty of
a petty tribe of Indiana, or to gat It ’
owe authority, without tho *M, aad
gainst the wishes, uf tho ft ,
Every hour’s delay wepld bava streogthmod tho
claims of the new government, and wescriptioss
and acquiescence would have been plead egohfefi,
as wfth seal sad eflbct. Tbs subject of txtaodfeff
tbe lews of lb* State ovar the Indians, eras prmao