Indians. What is the remedy? To open ours. Have we not the right? What says the constitution? "The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority."

But here was a case of conflict between the rights of the proprietors and the local laws; and here was the very case which the constitution contemplated, when it declared that the power of the federal judiciary should extend to all cases under the authority of the United States. Therefore it was fully within the competence of Congress, under the provisions of the constitution, to provide the manner in which the Cherokees might have their rights decided, because a grant of the means was included in the grant of jurisdiction. It was competent, then for Congress to decide whether the Cherokee had a right to come into a court of justice and to make an appeal to the highest authority to sustain the solemn treaties under which their rights had been guarantied, and in the sacred character of which they had reposed their confidence. And if Congress possessed the power to extend relief to the Indians, were they not bound by the most sacred of human considerations, the obligations of treaties, the protection assured them, by every Christian tie, every benevolent feeling, every humane impulse of the human heart, to extend it? If they were to fail to do this, and there was, as reason and revelation declared there was, a tribunal of eternal justice to which all human power was amenable, how could they, if they refused to perform their duties to this injured and oppressed, though civilized race, expect to escape the visitations of that Divine vengeance which none would be permitted to avoid who had committed wrong, or done injustice to others?

At this moment, when the United States were urging on the government of France the fulfilment of the obligations of the treaty concluded with that country, to the execution of which it was contended that France had plighted her sacred faith, what strength, what an irresistible force would be given to our plea, if we could say to France that, in all instances, we had completely fulfilled all our engagements, and that we had adhered faithfully to every obligation which we had contracted, no matter whether it was entered into with a powerful or a weak people; if we could say to her that we had complied with all our engagements to others, that we now came before her, always acting right as we had done, to induce her also to fulfil her obligations to us. How should we stand in the eyes of France and of the civilized world, if, in spite of the most solemn treaties, which had existed for half a century, and had been recognized in every form, and by every branch of the government, how would they be justified if they suffered these treaties to be trampled under foot, and the rights which they were given to secure trodden into the dust? How would Great Britain, after

the solemn understanding entered into with her at Ghent, feel after such a breach of faith? And how could he, as a commissioner on the negotiation of that treaty, hold up his head before Great Britain, after having been thus made an instrument of fraud and deception, as he assuredly would have been, if the rights of the Indians are to be thus violated, and the treaties, by which they were secured, violated? How could he hold up his head, after such a violation of rights, and say that he was proud of his country, of which they they all must wish to be proud?

For himself, he rejoiced that he had been spared, and allowed a suitable opportunity to present his views and opinions on this great national subject, so interesting to the national character of the country for justice and equity. He rejoiced that the voice which, without charge of presumption or arrogance, he might say, was ever raised in defence of the oppressed of the human species, had been heard in defence of this most oppressed of all. To him, in that awful hour of death, to which all must come, and which, with respect to himself, could not be very far distant, it would be a source of the highest consolation that an opportunity had been found by him, on the floor of the Senate, in the discharge of his official duty, to pronounce his views on a course of policy marked by such wrongs as were calculated to arrest the attention of every one, and that he had raised his humble voice, and pronounced his solemn protest against such

wrongs.

Mr. C. would no longer detain the Senate, but would submit the following propositions:

Resolved, That the committee on the judiciary be directed to inquire into the expediency of making further provision, by law, to enable Indian nations, or tribes, to whose use and occupancy lands are secured by treaties concluded between them and the United States, to defend and maintain their rights to such lands in the courts of the United States, in conformity with the constitution of the United States.

Resolved, That the committee on Indian affairs be directed to inquire into the expediency of making further provision, by law, for setting apart a district of country west of the Mississippi river, for such of the Cherokee nation as may be disposed to emigrate and to occupy the same, and for securing in perpetuity the peaceful and undisturbed enjoyment thereof to the emigrants and their descendants.

25*

ON THE APPOINTING AND REMOVING

POWER.

Delivered in the Senate on the 18th of February, on the passage

of the bill entitled "An act to repeal the first and second sections of the act to limit the term of service of certain officers therein named."

Mr. Clay thought it extremely fortunate that this subject of executive patronage came up, at this session, unencumbered by any collateral question. At the last session we had the removal of the deposites, the treasury report sustaining it, and the protest of the President against the resolution of the Senate. The bank mingled itself in all our discussions, and the partizans of executive power availed themselves of the prejudices which had been artfully excited against that institution, to deceive and blind the people as to the enormity of executive pretensions. The bank has been doomed to destruction, and no one now thinks the recharter of it practicable, or ought to be attempted. I fear, said Mr. C., that the people will have just and severe cause to regret its destruction. The administration of it was uncommonly able; and one is at a loss which most to admire, the imperturbable temper or the wisdom of its enlightened President. No country can possibly possess a better general currency than it supplied. The injurious consequences of the sacrifice of this valuable institution will soon be felt. being no longer any sentinel at the head of our banking establishments, to warn them, by its information and operations, of approaching danger, the local institutions, already multiplied to an alarming extent, and almost daily multiplying, in seasons of prosperity, will make free and unrestrained emissions. All the channels of circulation will become gorged. Property will rise extravagantly high, and, constantly looking up, the temptation to purchase will be irresistible. Inordinate speculation will ensue, debts will be freely contracted, and when the season of adversity comes, as come it must, the banks, acting without concert and without guide, obeying the law of self-preservation, will all at the same time call in their issues; the vast number will exaggerate the alarm, and general distress, wide-spread ruin, and an explosion of the whole banking system, or the establishment of a new bank of the United States, will be the ultimate effects.

There

We can now deliberately contemplate the vast expansion of executive power, under the present administration, free from embarrassment. And is there any real lover of civil liberty who can behold it without great and just alarm? Take the doctrines of the protest and the Secretary's report together, and, instead of having a balanced government with three co-ordinate

departments, we have but one power in the state. According to those papers all the officers concerned in the administration of the laws are bound to obey the President. His will controls every branch of the administration. No matter that the law may have assigned to other officers of the government specifically defined duties; no matter that the theory of the constitution and the law supposes them bound to the discharge of those duties according to their own judgment, and under their own responsibility, and liable to impeachment for malfeasance; the will of the President, even in opposition to their own deliberate sense of their obligations, is to prevail, and expulsion from office is the penalty of disobedience! It has not, indeed, in terms, been claimed, but it is a legitimate consequence from the doctrine asserted, that all decisions of the judicial tribunals, not conformable with the President's opinion, must be inoperative, since the officers charged with their execution are no more exempt from the pretended obligation to obey his orders than any other officer of the administration.

The basis of this overshadowing superstructure of executive power is, the power of dismission, which it is one of the objects of the bill under consideration somewhat to regulate, but which it is contended by the supporters of executive authority is uncontrolable. The practical exercise of this power, during this administration, has reduced the salutary co-operation of the Serate, as approved by the Constitution, in all appointments, to an idle form. Of what avail is it that the Senate shall have passed upon a nomination, if the President, at any time thereafter, even the next day, whether the Senate be in session or in vacation, without any known cause, may dismiss the incumbent? Let us examine the nature of this power. It is exercised in the recesses of the executive mansion, perhaps upon secret information. The accused officer is not present nor heard, nor confronted with the witnesses against him, and the President is judge, juror and executioner. No reasons are assigned for the dismission, and the public is left to conjecture the cause. Is not a power so exercised essentially a despotic power? It is adverse to the genius of all free governments, the foundation of which is responsibility. Responsibility is the vital principle of civil liberty, as irresponsi bility is the vital principle of despotism. Free government can no more exist without this principle than animal life can be sustained without the presence of the atmosphere. But is not the President absolutely irresponsible in the exercise of this power? How can he be reached? By impeachment? It is a mockery.

It has been truly said that the office was not made for the incumbent. Nor was it created for the incumbent of another office. In both and in all cases public offices are created for the public; and the people have a right to know why and wherefore one of their servants dismisses another. The abuses which have flowed and are likely to flow from this power, if unchecked, are indescribable. How often have all of us witnessed the expulsion of

the most faithful officers, of the highest character, and of the most undoubted probity, for no other imaginable reason, than difference in political sentiments? It begins in politics and may end in religion. If a President should be inclined to fanaticism, and the power should not be regulated, what is to prevent the dismission of every officer who does not belong to his sect, or persuasion? He may, perhaps truly, say if he does not dismiss him, that he has not his confidence. It was the cant language of Cromwell and his associates, when obnoxious individuals were n or proposed for office, that they could not confide in them.— The tendency of this power is to revive the dark ages of feudalism, and to render every officer a feudatory. The bravest man in office, whose employment and bread depend upon the will of the President, will quail under the influence of the power of dis mission. If opposed in sentiments to the administration, he will begin by silence, and finally will be goaded into partisanship.

The Senator from New-York, (Mr. Wright,) in analyzing the list of 100,000 who are reported by the committee of patronage to draw money from the public treasury, contends that a large portion of them consists of the army, the navy and revolutionary pensioners; and, paying a just compliment to their gallantry and patriotism, asks, if they will allow themselves to be instrumental in the destruction of the liberties of their country? It is very remarkable that hitherto the power of dismission has not been applied to the army and navy, to which, from the nature of the service, it would seem to be more necessary than to those in civil places. But accumulation and concentration are the nature of all power, and especially of executive power. And it cannot be doubted that, if the power of dismission, as now exercised, in regard to civil officers, is sanctioned and sustained by the people, it will, in the end, be extended to the army and navy. When so extended, it will produce its usual effect of subserviency, or if the present army and navy should be too stern and upright to be moulded according to the pleasure of the executive, we are to recollect that the individuals who compose them are not to live always, and may be succeeded by those who will be more pliant and yielding. But I would ask the Senator what has been the effect of this tremendous power of dismission upon the classes of officers to which it has been applied? _Upon the post office, the land office, and the custom house? They constitute so many corps d'armee, ready to further, on all occasions, the executive views and wishes. They take the lead in primary assemblies whenever it is deemed expedient to applaud or sound the praises of the administration, or to carry out its purposes in relation to the succession. We are assured that a large majority of the recent convention at Columbus, in Ohio, to nominate the President's successor, were office holders. And do you imagine that they would nominate any other than the President's known favorite?

The power of removal as now exercised is, no where in the