[1] This paragraph is entitled to the careful consideration of
all who aspire to a practical knowledge of the principles of our
Government, and an intimate acquaintance with its early working.
Louisiana had been ceded to the United States by the French
Government: the treaty for the cession was now to be submitted for
the ratification and the legislation which were necessary to carry
it into effect: and the President sets out with showing that he had
legislative authority for what he had done--that the sanction of
Congress had been given to the acquisition beforehand--before the
negotiation had been instituted. It was Congress--the legislative
authority--which had given that previous sanction, held so vital
by Mr. Jefferson: and, notwithstanding that previous sanction, the
treaty, after ratification by the Senate, was to be submitted to
the legislative power, for the exercise of their functions, as to
those conditions which the constitution had vested in Congress.
What these functions were, in the understanding of Mr. Jefferson’s
political school, was to give, or refuse the appropriation
according to the dictates of their own discretion, uncontrolled by
the treaty stipulation.
[2] _Boundaries of the Province of Louisiana, as contained in a
paper communicated by Mr. Jefferson to Congress._
The precise boundaries of Louisiana, westward of the Mississippi,
though very extensive, are at present involved in some obscurity.
Data are equally wanting to assign with precision its northern
extent. From the source of the Mississippi, it is bounded
eastwardly, by the middle of the channel of that river, to the
thirty-first degree of latitude; thence, it is asserted, upon
very strong grounds, that, according to its limits, when formerly
possessed by France, it stretches to the east as far, at least, as
the river Perdido, which runs into the bay of Mexico, eastward of
the river Mobile.
It may be consistent with the view of these notes to remark,
that Louisiana, including the Mobile settlements, was discovered
and peopled by the French, whose monarchs made several grants of
its trade, in particular to Mr. Crozat, in 1712, and some years
afterwards, with his acquiescence, to the well-known company
projected by Mr. Law. This company was relinquished in the year
1731. By a secret convention, on the 3d November, 1762, the French
Government ceded so much of the province as lies beyond the
Mississippi, as well as the island of New Orleans, to Spain; and,
by the treaty of peace which followed in 1763, the whole territory
of France and Spain, eastward of the middle of the Mississippi, to
the Iberville, thence, through the middle of that river and the
lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain to the sea, was ceded to Great
Britain. Spain having conquered the Floridas from Great Britain,
during our Revolutionary war, they were confirmed to her by the
Treaty of Peace of 1784. By the Treaty of St. Ildefonso, of the 1st
of October, 1800, His Catholic Majesty promises and engages on his
part to cede back to the French Republic, six months after the full
and entire execution of the conditions and stipulations therein
contained, relative to the Duke of Parma, “the colony or province
of Louisiana, with the same extent that it actually has in the
hands of Spain, that it had when France possessed it, and such as
it ought to be after the treaties subsequently entered into between
Spain and other States.” This treaty was confirmed and enforced by
that of Madrid, of the 21st of March, 1801. From France it passed
to us by the Treaty of the 30th of April last, with a reference to
the above clause as descriptive of the limits ceded.
[3] The bill thus passed was in these words:
“That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby,
authorized to take possession of, and occupy the territories
ceded by France to the United States, by the treaty concluded
at Paris on the thirteenth day of April last, between the two
nations, and that he may for that purpose, and in order to
maintain in the said territories the authority of the United
States, employ any part of the army or navy of the United
States, and of the force authorized by an act passed the third
day of March last, entitled “An act directing a detachment from
the militia of the United States, and for erecting certain
arsenals,” which he may deem necessary; and so much of the sum
appropriated by the said act as may be necessary, is hereby
appropriated for the purpose of carrying this act into effect;
to be applied under the direction of the President of the
United States.
“SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That until the expiration
of the present session of Congress, unless provision for the
temporary government of the said territories be sooner made
by Congress, all the military, civil, and judicial powers
exercised by the officers of the existing government of the
same, shall be vested in such person and persons, and shall be
exercised in such manner, as the President of the United States
shall direct, for maintaining and protecting the inhabitants of
Louisiana in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and
religion.”
From the terms of this act, and especially of the second section,
it is seen that the Spanish system of government was continued in
the ceded territory after it became the property of the United
States, and that the military, the civil, and judicial powers
of the Spanish Intendants (for France never took possession of
the country except to deliver it to the United States), were
transferred by law to such persons as the President should appoint.
The powers of the Spanish Intendants, as all know, were an
emanation of the despotic power of the kings of Spain, and wholly
incompatible with our constitution--a very clear declaration of
Congress that the constitution did not extend to the territory,
and that its inhabitants could claim no rights under it: and this
declaration was in consonance with all the previous acts for the
government of territories, all of which were inconsistent with the
constitution.
[4] The practice of pronouncing eulogiums on deceased members,
adjourning the two houses, and attending the funeral in procession,
had not then been adopted. A mourning for thirty days (which was
the length of time which the children of Israel wept for the death
of Moses in the Valley of Moab), was the simple and expressive sign
of respect.
[5] The following is the act:
That the act of Congress passed on the fourth of April, one
thousand eight hundred, entitled “An act to establish a uniform
system of Bankruptcy throughout the United States,” shall be, and
the same is hereby, repealed: _Provided, nevertheless_, That the
repeal of the said act shall in no wise affect the execution of any
commission of bankruptcy which may have been issued prior to the
passing of this act, but every such commission may and shall be
proceeded on and fully executed as though this act had not passed.
[6] This act, as passed, asserted full power in Congress to
legislate upon slavery in the Territories without regard to the
constitution, or any of its provisions in relation to the States,
or the rights of the States within themselves, or between each
other. Thus: 1. It prohibited the foreign importation of slaves
into the Territory at once, which, with respect to a State, could
not be done before 1808. 2. It prohibited the domestic importation
of any slave into the Territory which had been imported from
abroad since the year 1798. 3. It prohibited the carrying of any
slave whatever into the Territory, except by a citizen of the
United States removing into it for actual settlement, and being
at the time the _bona fide_ owner of such slave. These were three
provisions which could not be adopted towards the States; and for
their violation a fine was incurred by the importer, and freedom
attached to the slave--penalties which Congress could prescribe
within no State.
The following is the section containing these prohibitions and
penalties:
“SEC. 10. It shall not be lawful for any person or persons
to import or bring into the said Territory, from any port or
place without the limits of the United States, or cause or
procure to be so imported or brought, or knowingly to aid or
assist in importing or bringing any slave or slaves. And every
person so offending, and being thereof convicted before any
court within said Territory, having competent jurisdiction,
shall forfeit and pay for each and every slave so imported
or brought, the sum of three hundred dollars; one moiety for
the use of the United States, and the other moiety for the
use of the person or persons who shall sue for the same; and
every slave so imported or brought, shall thereupon become
entitled to and receive his or her freedom. It shall not be
lawful for any person or persons to import or bring into the
said Territory, from any port or place within the limits of
the United States, or to cause or procure to be so imported
or brought, or knowingly to aid or assist in so importing or
bringing any slave or slaves, which shall have been imported
since the first day of May, one thousand seven hundred and
ninety-eight, into any port or place within the limits of the
United States, or which may hereafter be so imported from any
port or place without the limits of the United States; and
every person so offending and being thereof convicted before
any court within said Territory, having competent jurisdiction,
shall forfeit and pay for each and every slave so imported
or brought from without the United States, the sum of three
hundred dollars, one moiety for the use of the United States,
and the other moiety for the use of the person or persons who
shall sue for the same; and no slave or slaves shall directly
or indirectly be introduced into said Territory, except by a
citizen of the United States removing into said Territory for
actual settlement, and being at the time of such removal _bona
fide_ owner of such slave or slaves; and every slave imported
or brought into the said Territory, contrary to the provisions
of this act, shall thereupon be entitled to, and receive his or
her freedom.”
This section applied to Lower Louisiana, called the Territory
of Orleans. No provision on the subject of slavery was made in
the act for the government of Upper Louisiana, afterwards called
the Territory of Missouri. And thus, by legislating fully on the
subject in one Territory, and not at all in the other, Congress
asserted its right to do as it pleased with slavery in such places,
uncontrolled by any power but its own will.
[7] At the time of passing the second bankrupt act in 1841--that is
to say, after the lapse of forty years--it was shown that there was
still property of bankrupts in the hands of assignees, the estate
being so administered as to pay expenses, yielding nothing to the
creditors, and leaving nothing to the debtors.
[8] There are three grades of Territorial government, all based
upon the idea of pupillage in the Territory, and of sovereignty
and guardianship in the Federal Government. The first grade, as
in the case of mere children, allowed the inhabitants no voice
in their own government: a Governor and Judges, appointed by the
Federal Government, adopted laws from the codes of the States,
and executed them. The second grade, as in the case of children
advancing towards the years of discretion, (to whom a father
allows some latitude of will,) admitted the inhabitants to some
share in their government, by giving them a Council composed of
their own citizens, (but appointed by the President,) to act
with the Judges in adopting the laws. The third grade, as in the
case of children arrived at the years of discretion, but not yet
of full age, allowed them a Territorial Legislature, consisting
of a House of Representatives, elected by themselves, a Council
appointed by the President, and liberty to originate and enact
laws; but all their acts as in those of the two other grades,
subject to the approbation of Congress. From this grade the
Territory, on attaining the population which would give a right
to one Representative in Congress, would pass into the class
of States, on an equal footing in all respects with the other
States, and entitled of _right_ to all the benefits of the federal
constitution. Before this transition, the Territories had no
_rights_ under the constitution. They were governed independently
of the constitution, and contrary to it. They had no benefits from
it, except such as Congress, in its discretion, chose to extend
to them. They were governed as property: the soil, as a sovereign
owner would govern his property; the inhabitants, as a father would
take care of his children, looking to their ultimate equality
with himself, and preparing them to enjoy that equality as soon
as prepared for it. It was this graduated form of Territorial
government, in its three regular degrees, to which Mr. Macon was
so much attached. It was devised by the “Old Congress,” as he
called it--the Congress of the confederation--and received its
features from the organizing mind of Mr. Jefferson when he was
a member of that Congress in 1784. Neither under the Articles
of the Confederation, nor under the Federal Constitution, had
the Territories had any _rights_: they were governed as property
according to the will of Congress, uncontrolled by any authority,
except the limitations and conditions expressed in the deeds of
cession from the States, or in the treaties with foreign powers by
which they were ceded. All this is abundantly evident in all the
legislation of Congress upon the subject, and in none more so than
in the government of Lower Louisiana.
[9] The _judicial_ power of the Territory remained as provided for
in the 4th section, in judges appointed for four years, and without
the right of jury trial in civil cases. The _legislative_ power was
vested in a Governor and council appointed by the President, and
their acts subject to the approval or disapproval of Congress. The
following is the section:
SEC. 4. The legislative powers shall be vested in the Governor,
and in thirteen of the most fit and discreet persons of the
Territory, to be called the Legislative Council, who shall be
appointed annually by the President of the United States from
among those holding real estate therein, and who shall have
resided one year at least in the said Territory, and hold no
office of profit under the Territory or the United States.
The Governor, by and with advice and consent of the said
Legislative Council, or of a majority of them, shall have power
to alter, modify, or repeal the laws which may be in force at
the commencement of this act. Their legislative powers shall
also extend to all the rightful subjects of legislation; but no
law shall be valid which is inconsistent with the Constitution
and laws of the United States, or which shall lay any person
under restraint, burden, or disability, on account of his
religious opinions, professions, or worship; in all which he
shall be free to maintain his own, and not burdened for those
of another. The Governor shall publish throughout the said
Territory all the laws which shall be made, and shall from
time to time report the same to the President of the United
States, to be laid before Congress; which, if disapproved of by
Congress, shall thenceforth be of no force.
[10] The yeas and nays were so nearly the same on every question
that one set will answer for the whole.
[11] Of the 21 who voted against this bill, almost the whole were
from the non-slaveholding States.
[12] The object of this bill was, not to increase the amount of
duty, but to increase the list of specific duties by transferring
_ad valorems_ to it as a means of diminishing frauds and the
expenses of collection.
[13] This was the whole ceremony. No eulogium was pronounced, nor
any adjournment moved, and in the House of Representatives the
event was not noticed. And this was the custom at that early time.
[14] This was the commencement of Mr. GAILLARD’s long Senatorial
service, terminated only by death, and during which, from vacancies
and absences in the Vice Presidential office, he was almost
continually President _pro tempore_ of the Senate.
[15] This was after the duel of Col. Burr with General Hamilton,
which event probably influenced the negative vote.
[16] A more beautiful or more patriotic address was never
delivered. How little could the hearers have supposed that, in
three years, the author would be on trial for High Treason.
[17] The interference of the Internal Revenue officers with the
politics of the country, was one of the reasons for preferring the
system of Custom House Duties to direct taxes; it may be a question
whether the concentration of the revenue officers in the Custom
Houses, and the vast number which the _ad valorem_ system admits
of, may not have given to that evil a more dangerous form.
[18] Roads, rivers, canals--their construction or improvement so
long the vexed question of Federal power, have been superseded as
national questions by the progress of science, and the force of
individual enterprise. Railroads have put an end to that question,
and with it, all the old maxims of preparing for war in time. They
are the largest, cheapest, and most effective preparation for war,
that the world ever saw, being the realization of the whole art of
war; to wit: The concentration in the shortest time of the greatest
number of troops. By these roads the United States would throw
millions of citizen soldiers, if needed, on any one point in a very
few days.
[19] We understand, that in correspondence with the Parliamentary
practice of England, no chair was, previously to the introduction
of Mr. Chase, assigned him; but that an informal intimation was
made to him, that, on his requesting it, it would be allowed.
[20] During these proceedings, neither the managers nor the House
of Representatives were present.
[21] The argumentative parts of the answer are omitted as being
reproduced in the pleadings.
[22] Mr. Jefferson.
[23] These words, used by Mr. Randolph as a quotation,--they were
quoted from Lord Chatham,--afterwards (during the Mexican war) were
repeated as original in the American Senate.
[24] On the 7th February following, Mr. Granger addressed the
annexed explanatory letter to the Speaker:--
WASHINGTON CITY, Feb. 7, 1805.
SIR,--My sole object in addressing to Congress my letter of
the first of the present month was to gain an opportunity of
refuting the charges and insinuations which had been made
against me. The little reflection I could give the subject
induced me to believe that it was proper, in a respectful
manner, to repel the charges publicly, and in the place where
they were made. Nor did it occur to me that the right of an
officer to defend his character depended upon the office he
happened to hold.
If, however, I erred in this, I presume it cannot be wrong,
in defence of my reputation, to address you in your private
character as a gentleman. I will own that I am desirous of
retaining your friendship and confidence. I will own that I
am not indifferent to public opinion, and that I seek the
confidence and esteem of my fellow-citizens by the even tenor
of a well-spent life, and a regular discharge of all the social
duties--not by lessening the esteem and confidence to which
others are entitled.
Various charges have been made against me for the interest I
have in the Georgia grants--for my being an agent of the New
England Company, and for my conduct as such agent. As these
charges have not yet appeared in print, I cannot give that
specific answer which may hereafter become necessary, and for
which I pledge myself to the public, in case such necessity
should exist.
I now take the liberty of stating how I became interested in
the claims, how the agency was accepted, and what has been my
conduct as agent.
First, as to my interest.
When the members of the New England Company formed their
contract with William Williamson as agent for the Georgia
Mississippi Company, in September, 1795, I had not the least
interest in the concern. Upon the advice of my friends, and
at their solicitation, between that period and the first of
December, I agreed to become interested, and accepted of
a certain share, which was procured for me by a voluntary
relinquishment of a part by several gentlemen for that purpose.
In January, 1796, the agents came on from Georgia to give
the conveyance, and I was deputed as agent for many of the
proprietors near Connecticut river; to discharge which trust
I proceeded to Boston. Before the business was closed my
principals arrived; a variety of considerations induced me to
relinquish the adventure, such as the difference of climate,
the distance of the property, the warlike habits of the
natives, and the want of capital, and before the time of which
I am about to speak, I relinquished my right to two friends
from Connecticut. Thus my concern with the Georgia lands, as I
thought, was closed for ever. But on the evening of the Sunday
next preceding the second Tuesday of February, 1796, Ashbel
Stanley, then of Coventry, in Connecticut, applied to Oliver
Phelps, Esq., and myself, and requested us to become surety for
him and Jeremiah Ripley, Esq., of said Coventry, (they being
partners in trade,) to the Georgia agents, for the space of
sixty days, to the amount of $75,000, and assigned for reason
that the agents would not take notes signed in the name of the
firm, and that he only wanted our names till he could have an
opportunity to procure the name of Judge Ripley as an endorser
to his notes. The great esteem I had for Judge Ripley, and a
knowledge of his ability, induced me to give Mr. Phelps, as
I was about to return to Connecticut, a written engagement
to assume one-third of the risk, in case he should think it
best to make the endorsement. Mr. Phelps made the endorsement
for Stanley, and took into his hands, as security, Stanley’s
conveyance of seven hundred and fifty thousand acres of Georgia
Mississippi Company’s land, for which the endorsement was
given; and, also, an assignment by Stanley of one hundred
thousand acres more, which Seth Wetmore assigned to Stanley.
Stanley failed. Judge Ripley denied the authority of Stanley
to use his name in a land contract, and Mr. Phelps and myself,
as endorsers, had to meet the $75,000. On the fourth day of
May, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight, we satisfied
these obligations, and they were cancelled and delivered up.
To acquire the means of satisfying these endorsements, we were
compelled to dispose of 670,000 acres of his land, besides
a vast deal of other property. When we called for the scrip
on the two thousand acres, conveyed by Wetmore to Stanley,
and by Stanley to Phelps, we found that Wetmore had conveyed
the same land to Israel Munson, merchant in Boston. Here a
new difficulty presented itself, which has been but lately
removed. On the 30th of August, 1803, Mr. Phelps, to enable
me to close this dispute, gave me a conveyance of these one
hundred thousand acres; and on the 8th of September, in the
same year, I effected a final settlement with Mr. Munson, of
his claim for the joint benefit of Phelps and Granger. This
explains the conveyances from Mr. Phelps and Mr. Munson to me,
and these facts can be proved by these gentlemen, and by Judge
Ripley, Amasa Jackson, Esq., of New York, Joseph Lyman, Esq.,
of Northampton, Massachusetts, Clerk of the Supreme Court, John
Peck, &c.
On record will also be found a conveyance of one hundred
thousand acres, of December 8th, 1803, from John Peck to me. In
this property I have not the least interest. It is deposited
in my hands in lieu of special bail, in two cases, in favor of
Eli Williams, of Hagerstown, against John Peck, of Boston, now
pending before the court in this district. John Thompson Mason,
Esq., knows this fact.
Finally, I have never been a dealer in this property, nor
otherwise than is herein stated, interested therein; excepting
only that in one instance I have received some scrip of a
gentleman, whose fortune was consumed by his adventuring in the
property, for a demand which was subsisting before the 13th of
February, 1796.
Secondly, As to my accepting the agency. On the 17th day of
February, 1803, the Commissioners on the part of the United
States reported to Congress in favor of a compromise of these
claims and Congress afterwards, in the same session, made an
appropriation of the 5,000,000 acres of land, to satisfy such
demands as Congress might think best to provide for. Thus stood
the business without a single objection within my knowledge to
a compromise, when, in August, 1803, one of the directors of
the New England Mississippi Company, solicited me to accept an
agency in the business. Although I could not see any objection
to it, as I was personally interested, and the duties of my
office had not the least possible relation to the business,
still I was not willing to accept the agency without advice.
Accordingly I stated the case to the last Attorney-General,
who suggested that he would not be understood to give any
opinion on the subject, but for his part he could not perceive
the least objection to my acceptance. After this the agency
was accepted, and I can with the greatest truth aver, that I
then had not the least idea of any objection on the part of
Congress. The only difficulty contemplated was that of bringing
the claimants and the Commissioners to an agreement.
Lastly. As to my conduct as agent. I acknowledge that I have,
in an open, fair, and plain manner, vindicated the rights of
the company I represent. But I deny my attempting to make use
of any kind of influence.
Here I appeal to the Commissioners, whether I have ever
attempted to press any thing in relation to the business. I
make the same appeal to you, sir, and to every other member of
the two Houses of Congress. If I have been guilty of what is
charged upon me, there must be some one ready to rise up, and
bear testimony against me. I trust I have virtue enough not to
attempt improperly to influence any man. If not, I hold the
members of Congress in too high respect to deem them capable of
yielding to any improper influence.
For the truth of this statement, I appeal to the Author of my
existence; and, in support of it, I pledge my character to you
and to my country. I cannot close this letter without offering
my ardent desire for an investigation of my conduct.