28TH CONG.....2D SESS.

the annexation of Texas. Believing the measure to be unconstitutional in itself, full of danger to the peace and happiness of the country, and dishonorable to our national character, I would reject Texas, were she to bring with her the wealth of the Indies; for what can compensate for a broken constitution, a dissolved Union, national dishonor?

After a glorious victory achieved by the combined Grecian fleet, Themistocles, wishing to preserve the supremacy of Athens, to the disadvantage of her sister cities, informed the Athenians, in a public oration, that he had a measure to propose which would be very advantageous to the republic. The nature of his design, however, was such that it could not be communicated to the people in general.

The Athenians, therefore, ordered him to impart it to Aristides, and, if the proposition met with his approval, to put it into practice. When Themistocles had discovered to him that his design was to burn the Grecian fleet in the haven of Pagasa, Aris tides, coming out to the people, gave his report of the stratagem contrived by Themistocles, "That there was nothing more advantageous, but at the same time nothing more unjust." Upon hearing this, the Athenians commanded Themistocles to desist from his intentions. I trust that, in this early day of our republic, the people of the United States will manifest as high a sense of justice as the Athenians, and prefer the honor of their country to all the advantages to be derived from Texas.

This question is now in the hands of the Senate. Each senator, I have no doubt, feels the deep responsibility of the occasion. The eye of the country is upon us: it looks to the Senate, the guardian of the Sovereign States of the Union, to sustain the rights of those States. It looks to us, the conservative branch of the government, to stand firmly between the machinations of the executive, the phrenzy of party excitement, and the established constitutional rights of the people. It looks to us, also, as a whig Senate, the only branch of the government in which the principles of that party are represented by a whig majority; and expects us to sustain those principles against all the allurements of patronage, or the influence of power. If we fail in our duty now, we shall disappoint both friends and foes.

It is in the hour of adversity, in the moment of dissolution, that the virtues of parties, as well as of individuals, are truly tested. It is then we show the sincerity of our faith, and even in death give immortality to principles which we labor in vain to sustain while living. Political power is about to pass into the hands of those who are the peculiar friends of this measure. Why not let the measure pass along with that power? Those who commenced this work should carry it on to its completion. They claim the honor of its inception; they also should have the responsibility of its consummation. Let the friends of Texas take care of Texas, but let the friends of the Union stand by the Union.

If our political sun is to set on the fourth of March, let it go down in honor; mar not its declining glory; so that, when the night of our discontent, a night of lone stars and erratic comets, shall have passed away, that sun may arise, unmarred by spot or cloud, again to bless the nation with its beneficent sway.

SPEECH OF MR. POLLOCK,

OF PENNSYLVANIA.

In the House of Representatives, January 22, 1845On the joint resolution to annex Texas to the United States.

Mr. POLLOCK said that he did not intend to pccupy his allotted hour in discussing the magniude and importance of the question before the House; neither had he obtained the floor with any purpose of convincing the committee of the proprity or impropriety of the annexation of Texas. He should not argue the question of power under he constitution, nor express his views of the expeiency or inexpediency of the measure proposed, a expectation of making more clear positions and rinciples already sufficiently defined and illustrated. He had sought the floor mainly with a desire to dene his position in this matter to the constituency hich it was his honor to represent, to express his wn opinions and sentiments on this great question, ad to declare the reasons that would control his ote on this all-absorbing subject.

He was here from a district which differed from im in his political creed. This district, which he

Annexation of Texas-Mr. Pollock.

It

represented at the last and present session, and which it would be his honor to represent in the next Congress, had been and is democratic; and, although he did not himself belong to that party, he did not consider himself the less qualified truly to represent their views and interests on that account. might, perhaps, be presumed that when he avowed himself to be against the annexation of Texas to this Union, he was acting against the known will of his constituents. If such was the fact, he would hesitate before he cast his vote in opposition to their pleasure against their known and expressed will. But such was not the case. During the late canvass, the Texas question had been distinctly made, and Mr. P. had publicly avowed his unconditional hostility to the measure. His opposition was perfectly well known; there was no concealment, no attempt at disguise; but the fullest and freest interchange of opinions. His competitor was well known to be in favor of annexation, and he himself not less understood to be diametrically opposed to it. He had acted throughout the canvass with openness and honesty, and he could not now act contrary to his known and confirmed sentiments. If his constituents should approve the course pursued by him on this question, he would be satisfied and gratified; if not, while submitting to their decision, he would discharge his duty to his country, without regard to personal consequences. He had received their suffrages, notwithstanding the prevalence of high party excitement-an excitement almost unparalleled in the history of political warfare. He had been sustained by the whig vote of his district, and his democracy had been endorsed by a very respectable number of the suffrages of the opposite party. He considered himself, therefore, most emphatically, a "democratic whig." This, indeed, was, as the gentleman before him intimated, "rara avis in terris;" yet he possessed the rare merit of being just that species of democrat.

J

The question of annexation, although agitated, was not strongly urged by the opponents of his election; and, although upon their banners were inscribed "Polk, Dallas, Texas, and Oregon," yet the first two and the last were the prominent principles of the opposing party.

He had heard it frequently affirmed here, during this debate, that the question of annexation had been decided by the people in the recent canvass; that they had rendered their verdict; and that we were here, not to argue the question and review their decision, but to record the judgment, by annexing Texas forthwith and immediately. But (said Mr. P.) I must be permitted to ask, as a gentleman who preceded me some days ago had done, when and where was this decision made? Was it decided in the State of Ohio? It is denied by some of the democratic members from that State; and they have truly said that President Polk received the support of the democracy of that State, not because he was in favor immediate annexation, but in despite of it. Has New York decided in favor of annexationthe Empire State, without whose vote James K. Polk could not have been elected President of this Union? The vote of her delegation upon this floor will answer the question. Has Maine declared in favor of Texas? Her legislature has very recently expressed a different opinion. If the people have decided it, I have yet to learn the fact. Did they decide that the tariff of 1842 should be sustained? This was one of the issues. Will Pennsylvanians believe that the people have condemned the protective policy? or that, in voting for James K. Polk, they were voting against that system, and against their interests? Sir, if the members of the Pennsylvania delegation upon this floor-the democratic members, I mean-contend, as has been done by the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, [Mr. C. J. INCERSOLL,] that the people, not only of Pennsylvania, but of the whole country, have decided in favor of Texas, then, sir, by the same rule, the tariff of 1842 is doomed, protection is no longer the policy of the government, and our manufacturers, denounced and condemned, must await in anxious suspense the execution of the sentence. Although the abstract question of annexation may have been decided in some parts of the country, the details connected with it never have been. Sir, (said Mr. P.,) the question now under consideration is one of deep and thrilling interest. It merits and should receive the profound attention of the whole American people. Contemplating, as it does, the introduction of a foreign State into our Union; a radical change of parties to our great and glorious confederation; involving the exercise of the highest act of sovereign

H. of Reps.

ty, the great constitutional question of power, the integrity of the Union, the permanency as well as the social and moral character of our free institutions, and the prosperity and happiness of the people, I am unwilling to assume the responsibility of its decision. The people are the great party in interest, and I could much desire that this entire question should be submitted nakedly to their arbitrament, could it be done in accordance with the constitution and laws of our country. They are the sovereigns of the land, and upon them would I devolve the responsibility of this responsible question. Their interests are at stake; the interests of the entire Union are at stake; and upon them he would cast the entire decision. Sir, could this question be thus submitted, I firmly believe that, from the North and the South, the East and the West, a response would come up here that would cause the advocates of this measure to stand abashed before it. The thunder-tone of a patriotic people would proclaim, in a manner not to be mistaken, their attachment to the "Union as it is." They are a Union-loving people; it is the object of their earliest, fondest attachment; and with the Union, the whole Union, and nothing but the Union, they are ready to stand or fall. They cherish this noblest work of our revolutionary fathers; and when I here proclaim the sentiment, "the Union as it is," I but echo the sentiment of every true and honest American heart.

And (said Mr. P.) I am for Texas as she is. I have no feelings of hostility towards her government or people. I would dot dim one ray that beams from her lone star, nor pluck a leaf from the wreath of glory that encircles the brow of her heroes. My desire is that her lone star may glitter with increasing brightness amid the solitudes and darkness of the despotism that almost surrounds her. Sir, let it grow brighter and brighter, and rise higher and higher, until its brilliancy shall equal that of the twentysix which now sparkle-a splendid galaxy-in the glorious banner of this republic. My motto is, Texas as she is." "The Union as it is." Our country first, our country last, our country forever." Sir, I feel proud of our national institutions, and rejoice to contemplate my native land-great, glorious, and free-stretching from sea to sea, and almost from the rivers to the ends of the earth. Here is a theatre wide enough for the largest ambition, and adequate to the most daring enterprise. Here we can exhibit to the world the example of self-government -an example long wanting in the history of nations. Here, sir, with civil and religious liberty as our birthright, we can proffer to the oppressed an asylum, and over all, citizen and stranger, throw the broad shield of our constitution and our laws. Why change the scene? why alter our political relations? why go abroad in search of foreign alliances? Will they add to our glory or increase our strength? Sir, we are a nation strong within ourselves, and the glo. ry of our republic excites the admiration of the world. Let us not endanger both by this, perhaps, fatal attempt at foreign acquisition.

Sir, (said Mr. P.,) whilst I am desirous of extending the enjoyment and the blessings of liberty to the farthest limits of our world, and while I believe its extension and triumphs cannot be restrained, and that it will and must travel beyond our present bounds, still I am not for extending the boundaries of our country along with it. The principle and the influence of freedom rever can be shut in and imprisoned within even the ample limits of the American Union. It will leap over, it will break out, it will rush abroad; nor can its onward progress ever cease till it has spread itself throughout the entire American continent. Nor will it stop even there. The groaning nations of Europe will see the light, and will sooner or later arise redeemed and disenthralled. The principle never can be crushed; but, like the pent energy of the nitrous flame, the more weight is piled upon it the more resistless and tremendous would be the final explo

sion.

The question now before the committee is of a most interesting character. Since the 4th of July, 1776, when our fathers proclaimed the independence of these States, no question has arisen pregnant with so many important consequences to the American people, nor has one of deeper moment, for weal or wo to a remote posterity, been presented to any deliberative assembly on the face of the earth. The question of annexation presents a new era in the history of our country. The question itself is novel; the records of history may be searched in vain for a parallel. Governments have been overthrown, and others built upon their ruins; the weak

3

28TH CONG.....2D SESS.

have been swallowed up by the strong; kingdoms have been dismembered, and their provinces divided among the spoilers; and acquisition by conquest has desolated nations; but the voluntary union of two sovereign and independent nations is a fact the historian has yet to record. In discussing this subject I do not intend to indulge in the criminations and recriminations that have characterized some portions of this debate. I will not condemn the North nor denounce the South. I will not impeach the patriotism of any member on this floor, or the patriotism of any portion of the Union. Animated by common hopes, and alike interested in all that belongs to the administration of our government, I will award to each and all the meed of good intention. And here in this hall, and on this occasion, we should lay aside the feelings of the mere partisan, and still the bickerings of party strife. They are more becoming another arena. Let us consult advance the best interests of our common country, and let us

"Be calm in reasoning,

For fierceness makes error a fault and truth discourtesy."

It has been asserted here, dogmatically, that Texas must and shall be ours; and, although this House has been required to annex it, because the people, it is said, have demanded it, I wish to know, before I record my vote in favor of the act, what great national considerations require the consummation of the measure. I ask the friends of annexatioh for information upon the subject; for arguments and facts that will justify the procedure.

Do we require any additional territory? Why not be content with our present limits, without the annexation of Texas? Are our ample fields not wide enough? Let gentlemen cast their eye upon the map of our Union; let them look at the rolling Atlantic dashing its surges along our seaboard to the east, while the placid Pacific gently breaks upon our western shores. We have already a country that spreads from sea to sea across this wide continent, and which, for variety of prod. ucts, fertility of soil, richness of minerals, and all the genial influences of a propitious climate, might be denominated the Eden of the world. Is not this enough? Shall we not be content? Must we be still grasping after more? Contemplate the vast and unpeopled solitudes which lie to the West. Are they yet full? Is their soil crowded by a teeming population that cries out for more space in which to dwell? We have now but twenty millions to cover all this illimitable space. For centuries to come it will still present portions of its virgin unbroken soil to the footsteps of the adventurous emigrant, and ages will roll away before its deep solitudes will be disturbed by the white man. Notwithstanding an increase of population unparalleled in the history of mankind, vast and magnificent regions of our country are without an inhabitant. Have gentlemen so much as dreamed of the period when this country would be densely populated? Sir, within our present limits a population of two hundred millions can be contained, and amply supported. Why, then, ask to increase our already extended territory? Our children and our children's children will here find a habitation and a home.

Sir, (said Mr. P.,) I deem any extension of our present limits as not only unnecessary, but objec tionable and dangerous. The annexation of Texas has been urged here strongly upon the ground that it is necessary for the security and defence of New Orleans and the southwestern frontier. This argument has been urged with a boldness that would seem to imply great confidence in its strength and importance. Backed as it is by the opinion of President Jackson, it deserves some consideration. But, sir, when I find that this distinguished general in 1820-in the vigor of manhood-with the laurels of victory fresh upon his brow-declared in a letter to President Monroe that, with the Floridas in our possession, New Orleans was safe, and that the invazion of Louisiana through Texas would not be attempted, and, if attempted, the invading army would pay for its temerity-I must be permitted, with all deference to his judgment in military affairs, to prefer his then expressed opinions to his present convictions upon the same subject. A single glance at the geography of that country will prove the fallaciousness of the argument. The best ports in Texas do not afford to entering vessels more than eight, certainly not more than twelve feet of watera circumstance that must forever prevent the land. ing of a large force in that country But, this efficted, the invading army would be required to march through a waste and desert country for four

Annexation of Texas-Mr. Pollock.

hundred miles to the Arkansas, and thence down that river and the Mississippi to New Orleans-an adventure partaking more of Quixotism than generalship. But I must leave this subject to those better versed than myself in the art military.

The possession of Texas would require the ports and long line of seacoast of that country to be defended; and thus a great increase to our fortifications must be made, and also of our naval and military establishments. The annexation of Texas by increasing the already great line of our frontier which must be defended, would weaken rather than strengthen the United States.

The introduction of Texas into the Union will bring with it new and diversified interests. Sources of discord and distraction, that now too much, unhappily, divide the American people; sectional prejudices and feeling; local interests and attachments, will be introduced; and these in turn will add fuel to the flame of party spirit, which has already become the bane and curse of our country. Faction, the deadliest enemy of republican institutions, will be engendered, and the conflict of opposing interests that will inevitably ensue, will mar the beauty and disturb the harmony of our system of government. The principles of our government may in theory be extended to an almost unlimited extent; the practical effect of too great an extension has not yet been ascertained. The experiment is novel as it is dangerous. It is the last feather that breaks the camel's back; and too great an extension may break the cords that bind us together, and leave the patriot to mourn over the ruins of his country. But I must hasten to other considerations.

Sir, (said Mr. P.) it has been said here and elscwhere, that the annexation of Texas would extend the "arca of freedom." It would be a matter of curious inquiry whether this new-born zeal for the extension of "freedom" has not its origin in a still stronger desire to extend the "area of slavery?" Extremes often meet in this world; and, from the course of this debate, and the official correspondence of our cabinet ministers, I am at a loss to know whether the love of freedom or of slavery is the predominating principle with those who so zealously advocate annexation. But this inquiry apart for the present. Will annexation extend the area of freedom? Sir, this argument is somewhat "out of season.' Texas is already free and independent. The "area" has been extended. We have given freedom and laws to Texas. Ever since the memorable battle of San Jacinto a battle fought and won by the strong arms and stout hearts of American citizens-Texas has been free, as her friends upon this floor have often and eloquently asserted. She already possesses what we now propose to give; and she therefore does not require the active sympathies of her American friends. But, sir, if we are to become the almoners of freedom to the world, why confine our charities to Texas? Why not at once undertake a crusade to put down every oppressive government, and set their groaning millions free?

The chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, who introduced this measure into the House, in his address at the opening of the debate, with the map of Texas in his hand, pointing to the Rio del Norte and the mountain ranges in that region, declared that the fiat of the Almighty had established these natural boundaries, and determined them to be the place where the Anglo-Saxon race must end, and the Spanish or Mexican race must commence. ir, had the gentleman cast his eyes a few inches further to the west upon his map, he would have discovered a boundary not less distinctly marked or less firmly established than the Rio del Norte: he would have their found the great Pacific. And why not extead at once our limits to that ocean? Gentlemen had told us that the march of liberty is onward; and if a free people have resolved that freedom shall adVance, why limit it either to the Rio del Norte or even the poundless Pacific? The awakening multitudes of South America would gladly receive the boon of liberty from their brethren of the North. And, sir, we have been told, by way of an oratorical flourish, that freedom's banners would yet float over that vast continent; that freemen's arms would unthrone the despot, and strike the fetters from her enslaved people; and that freemen's voices would yet bid South America be as free as they. Well, be it so. But will gentlemen stop there? Oh, no! They had not yet accomplished their work. On the further shore of the Atlantic, the millions of Europe are waiting the approach of the long-hoped-for day of their emancipation; and Asia, with the countless throng, longs for the hour of her deliver

H. of Reps.

ance; the doors of the Celestial Empire have bee thrown open, and the "Brother of the Moon" woul perhaps be willing to receive, even from us "barba rians," the boon we are so anxious to bestow upo Texas; and Africa (gentlemen must not forget herpoor sable, down-trodden Africa) stretches out he supplicating hands, and asks from us to share in th charities we would bestow. In her case, however there might, perhaps, be started a constitutional ob jection, and the gum-elastic expounders of the com stitution might be willing to say that that illimitabl clause in the constitution that declares "that Con gress may admit new States into the Union," wa never intended to apply to Africa or San Domingo Sir, the sons of Ham are there; and as we told, a few days ago, by the gentleman from Ala bama, that Ham had behaved very badly toward his father Noah, his descendants might perhap treat Uncle Sam with no greater respect.

wer

Sir, (said Mr. P.,) this pretended zeal for the ex tension of the "area of freedom" is worthy of th most palmy days of Don Quixote. We are unde no obligation to assume the responsibility of givin freedom to the world, or even to Texas. The in fluence of our example is all powerful to the con summation of this desirable result.

Sir, are we to enter the arena, and, for the pur pose of extending the "area of freedom," play the game of him

"Whose stakes were thrones,

Whose table earth, whose dice were human bones?

Disguise it as we may, the spirit of the argumen is conquest. It is the same spirit that led Alexan der, with his victorious armies, over the habitabl globe, and caused him to weep when "there wer no more worlds to conquer;" that chained kings to the chariot wheels of the Roman emperors, mad Rome the mistress of the world, and in turn over threw that mighty republic; that roused slumbering Europe from her dreams, and spread her million: over the plains of Palestine, to rescue the "holy sepul chre" from the hands of the infidel Saracen; that has written the history of the French revolution in blood that now controls the councils of England, and has filled the East with her armies to plunder and op press. Conquest is no part of our policy. It is founded in tyranny and injustice; it is at war with the spirit of our institutions and the principles of our glorious founders. To escape the oppression o the mother country they fled to these shores, estab lished here the great and fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, kindled their altar-fire on Plymouth rock, and have left to us what here they found

"Freedom to worship God.”

But

Again, sir, we have been asked to annex Texa in order to counteract the designs of England, who, by endeavoring to procure the abolition of slavery in Texas, intends to operate on the "peculiar instr tutions" of the South, and ultimately abolish slavery in the United States. In answer to this, it is enough to know that England has solemnly disavowed all intention of interfering with Texas, either for the abolition of slavery there or any other political par pose. This has been officially certified by the pub lic organs of that government to those of this. the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs had announced to the House that if we annexed Texas to the Union the British government would acquiesce, and intimated that he spoke this by su thority. That, although England did not disavo the desire of a connection with Texas, at least d commercial purposes, she had wisely determined to permit us to go on with our projeci of annexatioa without obstruction or molestation on her part. Sir I have long distrusted the policy of England. It i crafty, far-seeing, widely grasping, and deeply laid. It begins and ends in her own intence selfishess.

I would desire the gentleman who declared to us that England would consent to the proposed mess ure, to tell us what the acquiescence of Eng n:eans. Whence this sudden withdrawal of all p position in that quarter? As a clue to this inquiry I have turned to the official correspondence of late lamented Secretary Upshur, in which it is: that England was strongly suspected of a design tố abolish slavery in Cuba. Sir, I greatly fear her de signs extend much beyond mere abolition in that is land. Nor will I be surprised, as soon as Texas becomes a part of the United States, and is annexed to the Union, to hear the startling announcement from the other side of the water that Cuba has brea annexed to England. Perhaps, sir, even while we are deliberating here on this subject, cabinets of England and Spain are in scoretica

28TH CONG.....2D SESS.

clave, negotiating a transfer of that important island. The designs of England on Cuba are not new or of recent date. She has long desired that acquisition. Should she succeed, and such annexation be consummated-and gentlemen should remember that British gold had done much in this world; that Spain was poor, and needed much that "important sinew of war," money; that Great Britain was rich and powerful, and might obtain this, as she had obtained many other additions to her crown-the consequences to the United States would be serious in the extreme. And yet, should we remonstrate with her on such an attempt, should we assume a menacing tone, and tell her to keep off, to stand back, would she not meet such a remonstrance by referring to our own course in the annexation of Texas? Might not her minister say to our Secretary of State, You have annexed a whole nation to your own; we stood by in silence; now let us alone; we did not interfere with you; you shall not meddle with us. And thus we might unconsciously be preparing a two-edged sword, and putting it in the hands of England to be used against ourselves with terrific effect. Let gentlemen consider this. Supposing Cuba should be obtained and held by British force, could it be tolerated? Is there one American citizen who would submit to it? Could we, as a nation, submit to it? Never. Sir, the moment such a step is taken, the moment England attempts to place her foot upon the soil of Cuba as her own, a war, cruel and devastating, such as the world has not yet witnessed, would be the immediate result. Its flame would kindle suddenly, "and as if an electric spark had touched a nitrous world." Then, sir, the threat which had been so eloquently put forth on another occasion by a gentleman on the other side, about a "thousand swords leaping from their scabbards," might turn out to be something more than a flourish of oratory.

Whether this will be the result I know not; but I would have gentlemen ponder well the precedent they are now about to establish, lest, when their own act shall be returned upon their own heads, we shall be estopped from any just reply, and turned over to the last resort of conflicting governments. I must admit, sir, I have never been a very ardent admirer of England. To me her policy exhibits strong marks of hypocrisy in everything. I am almost unwilling to give her the credit of sincerity in the abolition movement, in which she is now engaged with so much zeal. I cannot believe that it springs from the pure unmingled love of liberty. There were designs beneath that did not reach the surface. I distrust the humane professions in favor of liberty of a government stained all over with the blood of slaves-whose coffers were full and running over with riches wrung from the labor of the wretched. Yet, sir, this is the government that now stands forth before the world as, par excellence, the friend of freedom. She might possibly be honest-no doubt many of her citizens engaged in this movement were-but, as a nation, her policy was suspicious, and it required to be watched with the sternest vigilance.

The House had heard from high authority that humanity required this measure of annexation; that Mexico was engaged in a predatory warfare against Texas, accompanied with atrocities which would disgrace savage barbarity. Now, all this sounds rather strange, after we have heard from the same quarter that there is no war between Texas and Mexico; that Texas has driven back her invaders, has beaten down her oppressors, and is now independent and free, and able to maintain her freedom against all who should assail her. If so, then how does humanity require that we should interfere to rescue her from her ruthless enemy? Why must we interpose, when no aid is required, at the risk of turning the sword from her only to plunge it in our own bosom? This is certainly the very refinement of humanity. The whole argument resolves itself into this: that we must adopt a war in order to extend happiness to Texas; that we must expend millions of money, and shed the blood of our best citizens, that Texas may be severed from Mexico and made a part of the United States.

Among the various and multiform propositions that have been submitted to this House for the annexation of Texas, there is one that requires, from its oddity, some little attention. It proposes the reannexation of Texas to the Union upon the basis of the treaty of 1803, by which Louisiana was ceded to the United States by France. This is simply proposing to restore a portion of our territory which

Annexation of Texas-Mr. Pollock.

it is alleged was unconstitutionally ceded away, and again to introduce into the sisterhood of States a long-lost member of the family. It has been urged that this government is under a civil and moral obligation to receive Texas into the Union, because by the treaty of 1803 we pledged the faith of the nation to admit the inhabitants of the province of Louisiana as soon as practicable to all the rights and privileges of American citizens; that Texas having been once a part of our territory, the government never had or could have the power to transfer or surrender it; that the obligation of the treaty of Louisiana remained forever unimpaired by any subsequent transfer, and that the United States, or the authorities thereof, in redemption of pledged faith, were bound to reannex Texas. This is the argument.

My time, I find, Mr. Chairman, will not permit me to discuss this question properly. The first inquiry, and the most important in this view of the subject is, did Texas ever form a part of the territory of the United States? Did we acquire Texas by the treaty of 1803, ceding Louisiana to us? If Texas never belonged to the United States, or was never included in the cession of Louisiana, then this favorite argument of the friends of annexation falls to the ground. So pertinaciously have the advocates of annexation insisted upon our title to Texas, under the treaty of 1803, that it is almost presumptuous for me to attempt a denial of the right, or to disprove it. To me, sir, the question has never been placed beyond doubt. Í have never yet been able to discover the evidence of our title; but, on the contrary, believe that the whole weight of the argument and the facts are against us. The history of our title is briefly this: By the treaty of St. Ildefonso, of the 1st of October, 1800, Spain_retroceded to France "the colony or province of Louisiana, with the same extent that it now has in the hands of Spain," and France, in 1803, ceded Louisiana to the United States. The treaty of 1803, after reciting the above description, ceded to the United States forever, and in full sovereignty, the said territory, &c. The boundaries of Louisiana were unsettled, and what Louisiana was remained to be determined. Texas, at the same time, was admitted to be a province of Spain, and separate from Louisiana; but whether Louisiana embraced what is now called Texas, is the question. That we did claim Texas, and insist upon that claim most dogmatically, no one can deny. Our claims were urged with an eloquence worthy of the distinguished ability of our negotiator. Yet, while we were claiming Texas as part of Louisiana, Spain was claiming the same country to the Sabine, and even to the Mississippi, with a pertinacity equal to our own. And now, sir, let me refer for a moment to the grounds of title urged respectively by France and Spain. And in the examination of these claims, we must remember that Spain claimed not only Texas to the Sabine, but claimed Louisiana as a part of Florida by right of discovery, from 1512 to 1542. History proves incontestably that Ponce de Leon, a Spaniard, discovered and took possession of Florida in 1512; that in 1538 Hernando de Soto penetrated from thence to the Mississippi, near the mouth of the Arkansas, with nearly five hundred men; that Alonzo de Soto, in 1546, passed from that point to the mouth of the Mississippi, and, with those under his command, coasted back to Mexico, discovering the intermediate region (Texas) in 1542. Spain, by virtue of her discovery, took possession and occupied Texas in 1690, erected it into a regu lar province in 1693, and finally maintained actual and uninterrupted possession up to the Sabine from 1690 till the breaking out of the Mexican revolution.

The discovery of Louisiana and Texas by the Spanish is nearly one hundred and forty years older than the French, as will appear by an examination of the claim of France to those provinces. The claim of France, like that of Spain, is founded on discovery and occupation. In 1677, La Salle, a Frenchman, descended the Mississippi to the Arkansas river; in 1683, in his second expedition, he passed down the Mississippi to its mouth; and in a third expedition, sailing from France, he landed in the Bay of Espiritu Santo, or St. Bernardo, and there built a small for, and occupied it from Februa ry, 1686, to January, 1687; he then abandoned it and was driven off, since which the right of France rested wholly in claim, against the actual adverse and uninterrupted possession of Spain up to the border of Louisiana to the Marmento, near the Sabine, and cast of that river. It thus appears that the right of Spain to Texas up to the Sabine,

H. of Reps.

and even beyond it, is superior to the French, both in right of discovery and occupation. In confirmation of the claim and title of Spain, it is found that to this day every city and town, every river and village, beyond the Sabine, in Texas, bears a Spanish name. These may be considered as the marks of survey still on the ground. These are evidences of Spanish occupation and ownership that will endure as long as the sun. Now, sir, it would be a very remarkable circumstance, if Texas ever was in the uncontrolled possession of France, that every feature of the country and of its settlements should bear Spanish names. If Texas ever belonged to France in sovereignty, how came this? If, indeed, the same Spanish names are found east of the Sabine, or in Louisiana proper, this argument would have little weight. But what is the fact? While every river, town, and hamlet west of the Sabine bears a Spanish name, every river, city, and town east of the Sabine bears a French name. At least such was the fact until within the last twenty years. Here, then, are monuments and internal proofs as firm and fixed as nature herself. I ask the friends of reannexation to explain the reason of this. Sir, it can be explained upon no other basis than the full and perfect right of Spain to the whole. of the country now and then called Texas.

To say the least, then, our title to Texas was disputed; and yet we are asked, in the face of more than one treaty, and most coolly, to take from Mexico a province claimed by her, on the very creditable plea that we had no right to cede away Texas— a country that we, in fact, never possessed. What right, then, have the people of Texas to claim admission into this Union by virtue of the stipulations of the treaty of 1803-a treaty in which they were not embraced? And upon what foundation rests the obligation of this government to receive Texas, if any does exist? None whatever.

But, admitting that Texas once belonged to this government, how are gentlemen going to prove that the treaty of 1803 towers in its authority above all treaties made before and since? What became of the treaty of St. Ildefonso in 1800? In that treaty the same guaranty was given by France to the people. In that treaty, too, Spain, while ceding Louisiana to France, expressly retained to herself the preemption right of repurchase, if France should ever sell it. Must the rights of Spain, and the rights of France, and all other rights, yield to the overwhelming right to reannex Texas; and that merely because a majority of a dominant party have chosen to introduce a resolution to bring in Texas, right or wrong, constitutional or unconstitutional? "Reannexation!" "We must reannex Texas!"

By the treaty of 1819 we abandoned all the claim we ever had to Texas. By that treaty the United States ceded to his Catholic Majesty, and renounced forever, all their rights, claims, and pretensions to that country; while, in exchange, Spain ceded to the United States in full property and sovereignty, East and West Florida. If we had no right to cede Texas, by what right do we now hold Florida? By what right does the delegate from that Territory hold his seat upon this floor? Gentlemen seemed with one accord to forget that Florida was held by that much-abused treaty of 1819. In addition to the treaty of 1819, by which we released our claim to Texas, this government, by a treaty made in 1828, under the administration of President Jackson, and ratified in 1832, during the same administration, reconfirmed to Mexico all that we had yielded to Spain in 1819. Again, in 1837, we recognised the independence of Texas, thus declaring our total abandonment of all claim to that country; and in 1841 we marked out by treaty the boundaries between the United States and Texas, defining where our possession ended and hers commenced. And yet gentlemen, in their hot and impatient haste for annexation, while they talked loudly of the sacredness of treaty obligations when a treaty favored their object, were willing to trample upon all treaties that opposed their favorite measure of reannexation. Sir, I never will yield my assent to such a course. Let the faith of the United States remain unsullied and unstained. Our treaties with Mexico have been deliberately made and solemnly ratified. Let them stand inviolable. Sir, the unsullied honor of our conntry is of more value than the acquisition of a continent.

will now proceed, sir, and state briefly some of the reasons of my opposition to the measure under consideration. I am opposed to assuming the large and untold debt of Texas. Annexation necessarily involves us in the payment of all her debts and lia

28TH CONG.....2D SESS.

bilities. What is the amount of her debt? The friends of Texas have not condescended to inform

us.

Do they know the amount? Is it seven millions of dollars? is it ten, or twenty-five millions? or is the amount still greater, as has been estimated by some? Sir, we are anxious to know the price we are to pay for Texas. The people are anxious. The amount is unknown. The authorities of Texas do not know it. The President of Texas, in his late message to the legislature, urges upon that body the propriety of adopting some mode to ascertain the amount of the indebtedness of Texas. And yet, sir, the majority in this House is willing, without information on the subject, in the dark, to assume all her responsibilities and liabilities. Sir, it is strange to me that gentlemen, who a short time ago declaimed so stoutly against assuming the debts of our own States as unconstitutional and unjust, should now, blindfolded, rush into the assumption of the unknown debt of a foreign nation; willing to appropriate millions out of the public treasury to pay the debt of Texas, but unwilling to vote one dollar to aid the States of Pennsylvania, or Ohio, or any of the sister States of our republic. Yes, sir, unwilling even to distribute the proceeds of the sales of the public lands among the States-a fund every way their own, and for the proper application of which, for their use and benefit, the faith and honor of the nation are pledged. Millions for a foreign State-not one farthing for our own! This, sir, is patriotism with a vengeance!

But, sir, a proposition is now upon our tables for the admission of Texas without assuming her indebtedness, and permitting her to retain her lands as a fund for the payment of her liabilities by herself. We cannot escape, by any action of this House, the responsibility of payment, nor can the concurrent action of the Texian government lessen our liability; our liability results from the union of soyereignties. Texas is now an independent sovereign nation; in that character she has contracted her debts and incurred her liabilities, and it is in that character that we propose to her conditions of annexation. By the act of union, the sovereign national character of Texas is merged in the national Sovereignty of the United States; not destroyed, but existing in a new form, a component part of a nation's sovereignty, not a distinct and separate existence as a sovereign. Our sovereignty becomes her sovereignty, and her sovereignty our sovereignty. The duties and obligations of the parties respectively coalesce and devolve upon the consolidated nation. Hence it is that the indebtedness of Texas becomes our indebtedness, our debts her debts, to be paid out of the common treasury of both in union.

Again, sir, by the admission of Texas into our Union as a State, we become liable for her indebtedness upon the well established principles of natural justice and national law. The national sovereign character of Texas being united to the national Sovereignty of the American Union, she assumes individually the character of an independent and sovereign State; not an absolute national sovereignty, but a limited constitutional sovereignty, an integral and independent member of a paramount sovereignty. By this union the security of her creditors is reduced, by changing the character of the party with whom they contracted. Texas, from being an independent nation, has become one of the States of this Union; and this change of character has impaired her right of "eminent domain" over the property of the people of Texas, and thus endangers the security of her creditors. By "eminent domain" is meant the money-raising power of a nation; the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; to take the property of the citizen through these means, and pay the debts of the nation. Now Texas, as one of the States of this Union, will have no power to lay and collect duties and imposts upon foreign importations-the best established and most common mode of raising revenue among civilized nations; she will have no power to do any national act whatsoever. Then, sir, to the extent that Texas is deprived of the power to raise revenue from imports, in that proportion do we reduce her ability to pay, and consequently impair the security of her creditors.

Sir, if we deprive her of the means of paying, we must in equity and good conscience pay her liabilities, or repudiate them altogether. The doctrine of repudiation must never be permitted to stain the annals of our country or tarnish her honor. We not only, sir, by annexation, impair the security of creditors, but we interfere with, and change the

Annexation of Texas-Mr. Pollock.

mode of collection-we defeat the right of action of the creditor against Texas. What are the modes and means usually resorted to by a foreign creditor to obtain redress from an indebted nation? The creditor makes an application to his government to interfere in his behalf; for it is a principle universally recognised, that a creditor cannot institute an action in a court of law against a sovereign nation, to recover his claim. The government to which application is made, willing to protect her citizens, as is clearly her duty, directs her minister resident at the government from whom the claim is demanded, to open negotiations with that government upon this subject. Should the negotiations fail and the money be not paid, it is then competent for the first government to make reprisals upon the commerce of the defaulting nation; or even to declare war, for the enforcement of the claim, should this "ultima ratio" become necessary. These being the remedies, how stands the case with Texas? If she remains a foreign and independent nation, these remedies can be enforced against her. But admitted into our Union as a "State," it is not competent for her, in that capacity, to send or receive a minister from a foreign government; and thus, sir, a recovery of the claim by negotiation is out of the question. As regards the second mode, reprisals, she has no commerce upon which reprisals can be made-the commerce of the country being exclusively national in its character, and not appertaining to the States; and should war be declared against her, and her territory invaded, the United States would be bound to protect her against invasion by an express provision of our constitution. What would be our position then? At war with a foreign nation, not to aid the collection, but prevent the payment of the debts of Texas. It is thus evident that we not only impair the security of the creditor, but also the mode of collection, and his right of action. Such being the case, we are bound in principle and law to assume the obliga

tions of Texas.

The insertion of the provision, in some of the plans of annexation now before the House, permitting Texas to retain her lands and pay her own debts, is a specimen of political trickery-a mere decoy to cheat and betray the people upon this important subject. Sir, will Pennsylvania, burdened with a debt of forty million dollars, contracted in the erection of a splendid system of internal improvements, developing the resources and adding to the wealth and greatness of our common country,-will she, groaning under taxation to meet honestly her obligations, consent that the treasury of the nation shall be plundered to pay a foreign untold debt, to enrich speculators and stockjobbers? It cannot be.

The existence of slavery in Texas and its proposed extension, constitute a very formidable objection to annexation. We were told in the opening of this debate that the annexation of Texas was a "slave question." And the late Secretary, Mr. Upshur, our present Secretary of State, Mr. Calhoun, and our public functionaries generally, found their principalˇargument for annexation in the security, extension, and perpetuation of slavery. Sir, that we, in the nineteenth century, a free people, proud of our free institutions, and declaring to the world in the great charter of our liberties "that all men are created equal;" that we, in opposition to the moral sentiments of the civilized world, should lend the aid of our government to extend and confirm this institution-an institution that now rests like an incubus upon the prosperity and peace of a large portion of our Union-is to me a most humbling consideration.

I will not discuss the social, moral, or economical relations of this subject. It is a question of much delicacy and interest, exciting in its nature, and thorefore to be investigated dispassionately yet fearlessly. I propose briefly to consider this question in its relation to the constitution. The power of Congress over this subject is very limited. It extends only to taxation, representation, the arrest of fugitive slaves, and the right to prohibit the importation of slaves subsequent to the year 1808. No gentleman upon this floor, I believe, contends that the jurisdiction of Congress over the subject extends beyond the cases stated. Slavery is nowhere in the constitution recognised as a national institution. It is peculiarly and exclusively a "domestic institution," and over it, as such, Congress has no control. Congress has no power to interfere with slavery in the States, or to attempt its abolition. It is equally true that Congress has no power to establish slavery in the free

H. of Reps.

States, or to aid its increase directly or indirectly within the limits of the United States. An examination of the constitution, did time permit, would prove the correctness of these positions. The States in which slavery exists can alone exercise jurisdiction over it. The absence of all power in the general government, except as before stated, over this question, is the best and most perfect security for their "peculiar institutions" the South could demand. Sir, if these propositions be true, where is the power of Congress to introduce into this Union, by a single act of her legislation, twenty-five thousand slaves? Congress has the power to prohibit the importation or introduction of slaves into the United States, but where is her power to admit slaves? Prohibition does not imply admission. Sir, the act will be unconstitutional; a usurpation of power; the establishment of a precedent dangerous to the South. Let gentlemen here once admit the right of Congress to interfere with the question of slavery-let them recognise our right to legislate for its increase or security, and I tell them in all sincerity that it will be but "the beginning of the end." Sir, I am willing to abide by the compromises of the constitution; and, while I will respect and defend the rights of the South, I would at the same time cherish and defend the rights of the North. As a citizen of Pennsylvania, from whose escutcheon the stain of slavery has long since been washed out, I cannot, I will not, consent to add another slave to the millions that now exist in our Union.

Another objection to annexation is the hazard of a war with Mexico. Mexico has refused to acknowledge the independence of Texas. She con. siders her a revolting province, and her right to subjugate her, if she can, is not denied. We have been officially notified by Mexico that she will consider annexation as a declaration of war. War still exists between Mexico and Texas, although no open hostilities are now in progress. Her distractions at home for the present prevent this; and, although torn by dissensions there, all unite in the determination to prosecute the war against Texas, and the United States, should we interfere. A war with Mexico, for this cause, would be unholy and unjust. We have nothing to gain-everything to lose. The privateers of every nation, sailing under the flag of Mexico, would sweep our commerce from the ocean. Can we retaliate upon her commerce? She has no commerce. Shall we send our armies into Mexico and plant our banners on the palaces of Montezuma? Although victory might crown our efforts, success would be dishonor.

Gentlemen have treated with contempt the idea of a war with Mexico, and talked flippantly of its horrors. War, under any circumstances, is a horrid evil; and may Heaven in mercy avert from our beloved country a catastrophe so tremendous!

The proposed annexation of Texas is unconstitutional in form and in substance; and this brings us to the great question at issue in this case-the question of power.

Has the federal government a right under the constitution to admit a foreign nation into this Union as a State? It is admitted that we possess no power to admit Texas into this Union by treaty as "a State." Without inquiring whether we can acquire territory by virtue of the treaty-making power, by conquest, in right of discovery, or as an incident of sovereignty, I will proceed to consider the question as it arises under the third section of the fourth article of the constitution, which declares that "new States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union" This clause has received a most liberal construction by the friends of annexation. It is declared by them to be without limitillimitable, and wide enough to embrace the world. And this, too, from the zealous advocates of strict construction. But, sir, has this clause no limit? Does it extend to foreign States, as well as to States arising within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States? Let us see. "New States may be mitted by the Congress into this Union." Does the power to admit new States authorize the admission of foreign States? If so, why use any words of limitation? Why use the word "new?" The use of this word was intended for some purpose, to establish some limitation, to distinguish the States to be admitted from some that were not to be admitted. If it was intended to confer the power to admit foreign States, why not say so at once? Why use any qualifying adjective? The words "new States" are evidently used in contradistinction to old States, or nations previously existing. The meaning and in

28TH CONG.....2D SESS.

tention cannot easily be mistaken. The power is limited to new States to be formed out of the territory of the United States; and when we find this power included in the same section of the constitution that confers authority upon Congress to make all "needful rules and regulations respecting the territory" of the United States, all doubt is removed.

visi of the

and the contemplated formation of "new out of them, that this constitutional proyas inserted. The contemporaneous history mation of the constitution establishes this

allusion

out of the

constr on. During the debates in the convention, as repo by Mr. Madison, himself a member, no to the adtever, even the most distant, was made cussion haelation to the formation of new States sion of foreign States. The whole disthose Statesestern lands," and the admission of of the Unitedich had arisen within the jurisdiction into the Uniotes, but which had not then come articularly Vermont. Could a subject of so muc foreign nation inportance as the admission of a wise men who the Union be passed over by the single remarked our constitution without a ch had been their intention, we I would have had so them in relation to expression of opinion from

The whole natured tenor of the constitution limit the operation of clause to new States to be formed out of the terr ry of the United States.

And here, sir, I cannot ter express my views in relation to this subject the by reading an extract of a letter written by Thomaefferson to Mr. Nicholas, in 1804:

"When I consider that the limi,

precisely fixed by the treaty of if the United States are expressly declares itself to be mad

-that the constitution cannot help believing that the intenn was not to permit or the United States, I Congress to admit into the Union ne States which should be formed out of the territory for wh, and under whose authority alone, they were then actin' I do not believe it was meant that they might receive Eland, Ireland, Holland, &c. [Texas!] into it."

In relation to the opinions of th great man on this question, I freely declare that yould rather err with him in 1804 than be right wh his pretended followers in 1845.

Congress is the creature of the cotitution. The power and jurisdiction of this bodyas been conferred upon, not created by, Congress We cannot by an act of legislation increase or ext、d our jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the nation legislature cannot extend beyond the Union, but mst, from its very nature, be exercised within it. Tere is no power conferred upon Congress that is ne to be exercised within the limits of the United Sites; and the subject-matter of that exercise of poer must be within our jurisdiction. Take any of th granted powers of Congress-for example, the pwer "to establish post offices and post roads." Thee is no limitation as to place here; the words are genral and universal, as much so as in the clause to adiit new States. But where are these roads and offics to be established, and this power exercised? The answer is plain. Within the limits of the United States. "Congress may admit new States into the Union." Where are these States to be formed, and whre the power exercised? The answer is not less plain. Within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States. And so of all the other powers of Cogress. Again: the power conferred on Congress is o admit new States, not to create new States or aquire territory; a power of organization and inspection, not of creation and acquisition. But gentlemen tell us that the power to admit necessarily imples the power to acquire; that acquisition is incident to admission. If so, the incident is superior to the principal; the implied power more important than the power granted. In logic and in law the major proposition may and does include the minor, but here the minor is made to include the major, which is an absurdity.

The proposition to annex Texas by bill or joint resolution, is an attempt to give life and vitanty to a dead treaty, a usurpation of the treaty-making power; a violation of State rights; an attempt to make a contract with a foreign nation; an act which it is

not competent for Congress to perform. And here on this subject let me refer to the opinions of Mr. Calhoun, an authority entitled to the regard of the strict constructionists. Mr. Calhoun, in 1816, in a debate on the bill to carry into effect the commercial treaty with Great Britain, said:

"Congress cannot make a contract with a foreign nation. Whatever, then, concerns our foreign relations-whatever requires the consent of another nation-belongs to the treaty power, can only be regulated by it." "Besides these constitutional limits, the treaty power, like all others, has other limits derived from its nature and object. It has for its object contracts with foreign nations, as the powers of Congress have, for their object, whatever can be done in relation to the powers delegated to it, without the consent of foreign nations. Each in its proper sphere operates with genial influence; but when they become erratic, then they are portentous and dangerous. A treaty never can legiti. mately do that which can be done by law; and the converse is also true."

There is another argument against the constitutionality of annexation to which I must advert. The constitution declares that no person shall be a representative who shall not have been seven years a citizen of the United States; and no person shall be a senator who shall not have been a citizen of the United States nine years. Now, sir, if Texas is annexed, she will come in without the requsite qualifications, either in her senators or representatives. The citizens of Texas are not now citizens of the United States, although some of them may have emigrated from this country. The doctrine of expatriation is fully recognised by our government. By what authority then can the senators and representatives from the State of Texas claim their seats in the American Congress? Will they be permitted a seat here in violation of an express constitutional provision? How will gentlemen reconcile these conflicting provisions? The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. RHETT,] admitted there was something in this objection, and I was pleased to see that gentleman attempt the explanation. He said the design must have been either that a State thus admitted should remain unrepresented until the constitutional disability was moved, or select citizens from other States to represent them. Texas is to come into the Union as a sovereign and independent State, upon equal terms with the original States, and yet she, equal and independent by the terms of her admission, is without a citizen qualified to represent her sovereignty in the Senate or her people on this floor. Will an independent State submit to the indignity either to remain without a representation, or beg it as a boon from the hands of citizens of other States? When snch anomalous consequences flow from the annexation of a foreign State, the conclusion is irresistible that the admission of such a State into this Union as a State never was contemplated by the framers of the constitution, and is in palpable violation of that sacred instrument. But I can pursue this subject no further.

re

Sir, we have been told that "we want Texas," and "Texas we will have ght or wrong. "" Go on then, sir, and consummate this act; trample upon the constitution of our country, violate every principle of international law, disregard the plighted faith of the nation, tarnish her honor, insult the moral feelings and sentiments of a large portion of the American people, and when the Muse of History shall record the doings of that hour, she will record for posterity our nation's error and our country's shame.

SPEECH OF MR. RAYNER,

OF NORTH CAROLINA.

In the House of Representatives, February 26, 1845.On the bill making an appropriation for the improvement of harbors and rivers, considered with reference to the foreign relations of the country.

Mr. RAYNER said he questioned the policy of so heavy an expenditure at the present time. He thought the appropriations proposed by the amendment of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. TIBBATTS] were not only large, when the present threatening foreign relations of the country were considered, but too sectional; and, if such a bill was to pass, he wished to see its provisions made more general, so as to embrace in its benefits his own State. He wished not to be misunderstood. His opinions in regard to the constitutional powers of Congress on the subject of internal improvement were less stringent than when he first entered public life. He admitted the power and the expediency of improving those great thoroughfares of commerce and chan

H. of Reps.

nels of inter-State communication with which were identified the interests of a large section. Rivers (like the Mississippi and the Ohio) which ran through many States, and which were the natural outlets for their commerce, he considered it within the competency of the general government to improve. He admitted the power of Congress also to improve harbors and the mouths of smaller rivers, when necessary to the advancement and convenience of commerce with foreign nations. The exercise of this power of improvement was fraught with great difficulty; so difficut did it frequently prove to discriminate between objects that were national and those that were purely local. It was also a subject on which legislation was too seldom matured with reference to the intrinsic merits of the objects under consideration. Combinations between different portions of the country usually secured appropriations which weak and less important sections could not obtain, no matter how palpable soever their claims. He (Mr. R.) had been endeavoring for every session since he had a seat in that House, to obtain an appropriation for reopening an inlet on the coast of North Carolina. He had, however, until the last session, consoled himself with the fact that the hitherto embarrassed condition of the treasury had arrested nearly all such improvements throughout the country. That difficulty was now removed; the revenues of the nation were abundant and prosperous; and he insisted that, if these works of improvement were to go on, the claims of North Carolina should be regarded. And although he questioned the propriety of so heavy an expenditure at present, yet he might vote for the bill if its benefits were made general, and if the justice of the House would grant him an appropriation for reopening Roanoke Inlet and the establishment of a safe harbor on that perilous coast. Whilst he might be willing to vote for such a bill as would provide for a fair and equitable distribution of its benefits, yet he protested against a profligate expenditure of millions for works merely sectional and local; more especially when effected by the combination of different interests, neither of which had merit of its own enough on which to stand. He gave notice now, that if this system was to be pursued, he should insist upon an appropriation for eastern North Carolina's great and favorite object-the re-opening an inlet and improvement of a harbor near old Roanoke Inlet, through which Sir Walter Raleigh's fleet first approached our shores.

Mr. R. said he then gave notice that at the proper time he should move to amend the bill by adding an appropriation for effecting this great improvement; and under no circumstances would he vote for the bill unless his amendment succeeded. This was no new and visionary scheme. It had been recommended to the favorable notice of the general government by the legislature of North Carolina fourteen different times, as he believed. A survey had been made under the direction of the general government four different times he believed; and it had always been recommended as one of the most important improvements in the country. It had been, to his own knowledge, twice reported on favorably to this House by the Committee on Roads and Canals, twice by the Committee on Commerce, and once by a select committee raised specially with a view to considering the subject. It had ever been recommended as not only important to the commerce of that vast and fertile section of country watered by the tributaries of Albemarle Sound, but to the whole coastwise commerce between the North and South. I presume it is well known (said Mr. R.) that the site of the work which I propose is on the most dangerous part of the whole Atlantic coast. Whilst most subject to storms, it is at the same time most destitute of a safe harbor in which for vessels to seek security. There is not a season that numbers of vessels are not lost and numbers of lives sacrificed here for the want of a secure refuge in time of storms. Humanity, as well as justice to North North Carolina and the great commercial and naval interests of the Union, require that this work should be effected by the government. It is northern vessels, northern crews, and northern cargoes that are put in peril for the want of it. The increased rate of insurance paid by northern shippers in consequence of the dangers of this very part of the coast would pay for the completion of the work in a very short time. Gentlemen are mistaken if they suppose that this is a mere local question, in which North Carolina is interested. If any work can be national-if Congress can do anything of the kind