in the fall to the United States. The dispatches reached their destinations seasonably and in safety. In settling his account,the department of state allowed his passage moneys and his wages up to such a time as was deemed sufficient for him to have gone to the places to which he had been ordered, done his business, and returned. This, in the opinion of the committee, was a misapplication of the contingent fund, and a lavish expenditure of the public money. They supposed that the appointment was unnecessary, notwithstanding the declarations of the secretary, that such had been the usual, and in the opinion of the department, the only safe course. They thought the dispatches ought to have been sent by the captain of some merchant vessel; or, if they were of such a nature as to require a special messenger, he ought, at all hazards, to have remained at his post : and in no event should Mr. Pleasants have been paid for services not performed. Mr. Cook, of Illinois, had been appointed in the spring of 1827, on a secret mission to the island of Cuba. After a short residence there, he returned on account of ill health, and soon after died. In consequence of this, it was not known that any important benefits resulted from the mission. He was paid an outfit, and a salary for a short period, at the same rate as a charge des affaires, out of the contingent fund, and the expenditure accounted for only on the general certificate of the president. The committee could see no reason for this appointment or expenditure. On application to the secretary of state, he proposed to disclose to them confidentially, the objects of the mission; they declined receiving it upon those terms, leaving the subject as they found it; with a strong suspicion, that as Mr. Cook, in February, 1825, being a member of the house of representatives, gave the vote of Illinois to Mr. Adams, this appointment was a reward for that service; although the intervening period of more than two years, somewhat weakened the suspicion. The committee specify several other instances which they deem to be abuses of this fund, but none of so prominent a character. Though their commission authorized them to extend their inquiries back to the commencement of the government, they chose to confine them to the period of the present administration. The committee were greatly and justly alarmed at the executive patronage of the press. They find that there are eighty-two newspapers in which the laws of the United States are printed for general information. That the amount paid for printing, advertising, and subscriptions for newspapers by the executive departments, and general post office from the commencement of Mr. Adams' administration to the period of their inquiries amounted to 78,030 dollars. This they consider as sufficient to bribe the publishers to support the views of a corrupt executive; and recommend measures to restrict this patronage. It not having occurred to the committee that a successful candidate for the presidency, might, by rewarding influential editors with lucrative offices, obtain an entire control of the press, they made no provision against such contingency. Counterpart by the minority. The administration had two powerful advocates on this committee, Messrs. Sargeant and Everett. They accompanied the report with a counterpart expressing their views of the various subjects under consideration. They state that the expenses of the executive department to which their inquiries had been chiefly directed, amounted to about one fiftieth part of the whole expenditure of the government; that only one sixth of this was in any way subject to executive discretion, the residue being provided for, and limited by law, and but one tenth of this one-sixth was of a nature any way questionable. The amount, therefore, which could in any manner be subject to the pruning of a retrenchment committee, was only one three thousandth part of the public expenditure. Small however as it may be, compared even with the expenses which the debate on the subject has occasioned, they think it ought to be critically examined, that every avenue to corruption might be stopped. They then proceed to the examination of the various subjects embraced in the report, and arrive at the conclusion that the financial affairs of the nation have been managed with economy. Navigation of the St. Lawrence. On the 7th of January, the president transmitted to the house of representatives, the correspondence between the British and American governments on the subject of the navigation of the St. Lawrence. The claim to a free navigation of that river from its source to the ocean for the citizens of the United States, was first made by Mr. Rush, in 1824, and met with a decided refusal; the British ministry considering their right to exclude all foreigners from navigating that river through their territory, as a matter which admitted not even of debate. The claim was renewed and enforced more at large by Mr. Gallatin, in obedience to instructions from the department of state, in 1826, and with the same result. The question of right to the free navigation of a river, where one power owns both banks at the mouth, and another, those on the upper portions of the stream, has never been definitively settled. Writers on national law, favor the doctrine of the exclusive right of the lower proprietor. This has never been submitted to, where the upper was the most powerful and able to enforce his claim. All the material points arising in Europe on this head, were settled by treaty stipulations at the general congress at Vienna in 1815. In all instances the right was secured to the upper proprie tors on such terms as that congress thought expedient. Previous to this period, the subject had been a fruitful source of controversy and war. Mr. Gallatin enforced the American claim with great ingenuity as well from what he contended was the principle of natural right, as from the necessity of the case. Six states at least, bordering on the upper waters of that river, were interested in its navigation. It could not be supposed that they would give up this highway which the author of nature had provided for them to the ocean, the common property of all. It was a right which might be enjoyed without detriment, and generally to the mutual advantage of the upper and lower proprietor. A difficulty, however, presented itself in this case, common to most others of this nature, admitting the right, it could not be beneficially enjoyed by the upper proprietor without a place of deposit in the lower. The productions of the upper country can never reach the ocean in the same vehicle in which they are first embarked. A transhipment, and of course a depot in the lower country is necessary. This cannot be claimed as a matter of strict right, but must be the subject of negotiation. The claim of Mr. Gallatin was met by a direct and unqualified refusal, accompanied with a labored argument in favor of the British principle. From the result of this correspondence, it is evident that the free navigation of the St. Lawrence is not to be obtained without a purchase, a conquest, or the independence of the Canadas. Fortunately, the Erie canal and its branches, the Champlain canal, and the contemplated one across the northern border of New York, from the St. Lawrence to lake Champlain, renders the navi gation of that river through the British territory of little consequence; there being very few, if any points on its upper waters, from whence produce will not reach a foreign market by the way of New York, at a cheaper rate than by Montreal and Quebec. Death of General Brown. Major General Brown, commander in chief of the army, died at Washington, on the 24th of February, 1828. In consequence of the vacancy occasioned by his death, Mr. Chandler, of Maine, introduced a motion into the senate, to abolish the office of major general, leaving the command in chief of the army to the senior brigadier. The motion not prevailing, the vacancy was filled by the appointment of General Macomb. The session closed on the 27th of May. Excitement in the south. No events since the commencement of the revolution, so much resembled the tumultuous and disorderly proceedings of that period, as the excitement in the south, occasioned by the tariff. South Carolina, feeling herself the most deeply injured, took the lead. It became a matter of serious debate, with her delegation in congress, after the passage of the law, whether they should not abandon their seats.* It was the serious, deliberate, and universal opinion of the southern section, that the law was unconstitutional, unjust, and peculiarly oppressive to them. Inflammatory newspapers, taking the lead, and profiting by the excitement, called upon the people of the south to form conventions, and separate from the union. Ambitious politicians followed in the train, adding fuel to the flame, hoping to profit by its ravages, regardless of consequences. Meetings were held in various places, all agreeing in the general measure of denouncing the tariff, but varying in their modes of opposition, according to the feelings, character, and intelligence of the members. At a meeting of the inhabitants of Colleton district, an inflammatory address, calling upon the citizens to an open resistance to the law, was received with applause. It had become a custom, to a considerable extent, for such representatives as had, in the opinion of their constituents, distinguished themselves in congress, on interesting subjects, to receive the honors of a public dinner; the characteristics of which were, a complimentary toast to the guest, and a speech from him, in unison with the feelings of the assembly. Such an entertainment was given to Mr. M'Duffie, at Columbia, at which Governor Taylor presided. A little previous to it, the tariff law, and the effigies of its principal supporters, were publicly burned. On being toasted as the chairman of the committee of ways and means, in allusion * Haynes and Martin's letters, 1828. to the celebrated anti-tariff report of that committee, he addressed the meeting in a speech of two hours, in which he represented the majority who had passed the law, as a set of desperate, unprincipled tyrants, who had bartered away the rights and interests of the south, for electioneering purposes; that such a state of things was insufferable, and none but cowards would bear it longer. He concluded with the toast, "millions for defense, not a cent for tribute." The manner in which this had been used, at the commencement of the late war, and of its introduction now, was such that its object could not be mistaken. The speech, with the concluding sentiment, was received with unbounded applause. The governor's message to the legislature, in the following November, partook very much of the character of these meetings. South Carolina, however, was not without her distinguished citizens who reprobated proceedings of this nature. David R. Williams, formerly governor of the state, now in retirement, on being applied to on the subject, though falling in with the current of opinion on the constitutionality of the law, censured, in severe terms, all tumultuous and hostile measures. "Dreadful, indeed," he says, "must be the suffering which would warrant an appeal to the elements of passion and discord, for relief." The proceedings in the other states of the south, though agreeing, in principle, on the constitutionality and effects of the tariff, were of a much more moderate character. The principal meeting was held at Athens, in Georgia, on the 6th of August, at which Mr. Crawford, formerly secretary of the treasury, presided. Messrs. Berrien and Cobb, of the United States senate, several members of the house of representatives, and other distinguished characters, were present. It seemed to be the object of the talented gentlemen who guided the deliberations of this meeting, to allay, rather than increase the excitement, and to give it a right direction. After declaring their opinion, that the law was unconstitutional, and injurious to the south, they say, "that as the union is dear to them, it should not be jeoparded by any measures of an angry and violent character." They recommend an earnest request for the repeal of the law, an address to their fellow-citizens throughout the union, to aid in the measure. They recommend to the people of Georgia, to produce within themselves, as much as possible, the principal articles affected by the tariff. This cool, judicious, and constitutional proceeding of the elite of Georgia, while |