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

amount for the votes of Louisiana upon that question.

The gentleman from Philadelphia [Mr. J. R. INGERSOLL tell us that the extension of territory will endanger the existence of the Union, and that the government will break down by the cumbersome weight of our extremities. Mr. CARY said that it gave him no pleasure to recur to the disgraceful scenes that transpired the last summer in the city represented by that gentleman; and he would leave the country to judge how much reliance can be placed upon the strongholds and populous cities of the law-and-order party, by noticing the fact, that the whigs had increased their majority at the recent election six thousand, within the limits embraced by the riots.

Mr. INGERSOLL, in explanation, said that the riots were in the democratic portion of the county of Philadelphia. So much the worse, replied Mr. C. as the whigs went from home to burn Catholic churches and mob democrats.

Mr. C. added, that we had nothing to fear from the extension of territory as long as our government was just. Let the people feel its justice, not its oppressions, and the hard-handed yeomanry of the country would always rally to its support.

It had always been the policy of the federal party to prevent an extension of territory. They resisted the acquisition of Louisiana as they now do Texas. They view with jealousy and dismay the opening of any new avenue for the escape of the surplus population of the old States from their oppressions.

The gentleman from Philadelphia, and the gentleman from Boston, [Mr. WINTROP,] had warned us in the most solemn manner, not to exercise any doubtful constitutional power. He would ask those gentlemen if they did not vote for the existing protective tariff, and where they found the constitutional authority for its enactment? He would ask them if they did not vote for the bankrupt law-a retrospective law, for the abrogation of debts-an ex post facto law, passed in defiance of a plain provision of the constitution?

Mr. C. went on to say that nothing would satisfy the opponents of this measure. When the treaty for annexation was before the Senate, the President was denounced as a usurper, seizing upon the warmaking power of the country; and when Congress undertakes to legislate upon the subject, it is denounced as an assumption of the executive power, on the ground that the executive only is authorized to make treaties. But the treaty for the purchase of Louisiana guarantied the payment of $15,000,000; and the purchase of Texas would require $10,000,000. Have the treaty-making power the right to appropriate money from the treasury under the constitution? He had not seen the clause in the constitution granting such power to the executive. If there were any doubts upon this point, he would go to the clause empowering the House of Representatives, and the House only, to originate money bills; and the power to pay must imply the right to procure and appropriate-a right not vested in the executive. He would ask, on the other hand, wherein Congress would exceed its authority by admitting Texas by legislative enactment. It is authorized by the constitution to make all laws to carry its provisions into effect; and its authority clearly grants the power to admit new States a power which cannot be exercised without the right to acquire the territory from which States may be created. Could there be any danger from the exercise of this power by Congress? It is said to be entrenching upon the executive; but is not the President armed, much to the chagrin of the whig party, with the veto power, which enables him to throw all attacks back upon us, making necessary the same constitutional majority now required to ratify treaties?

The gentleman from New York had told us that he was in favor of the annexation of Texas, but opposed to admitting in any other form than by executive action; which amounts to an opposition to the admission upon any terms, as it is well known that more than one-third of the Senate are already bound by party alliances to oppose the measure in every form.

SPEECH OF MR. CHOATE,

OF MASSACHUSETTS.

In Senate, January 8, 1845-On the bill for the establishment of the Smithsonian Institute. The Senate having taken up the bill for the establishment of the Smithsonian Institute

Smithsonian Institute-Mr. Choate.

Mr. CHOATE said he was sure that, whatever opinion might be at last formed on this bill, its principles, or its details, all would concur in expressing thanks to the senator from Ohio [Mr. TAPPAN] for introducing it. We shall differ, he proceeded, more perhaps than could be wished, or than can be reconciled, about the mode of administering this noble fund; but we cannot differ about our duty to enter at once on some mode of administering it. A large sum of money has been given to us, to hold and to apply, in trust, "for the increase and diffusion or knowledge among men." We have accepted the trust. "To this application-(such is the language of our act of the 1st of July, 1836-) to this application of the money the faith of the United States is hereby pledged." The donor is in his grave. There is no chancellor to compel us to redeem our pledge; and there needs none. Our own sense of duty to the dead, and the living, and the unborn who shall live-our justice, our patriotism, our policy, common honesty, common decorum, urge us, and are enough to urge us, to go on, without the delay of an hour, to appropriate the bounty according to the form of the gift. I thank the senator, therefore, for introducing a bill with which, to my own knowledge, he has taken much-and, so far as I can see or conceive-disinterested pains, and which affords us an opportunity to discharge a plain duty, perhaps too long delayed.

I think, too, sir, that the senator has, in the first section of the bill, declared the true fundamental law according to which this fund ought to be permanently administered. He lends to the United States the whole sum of $508,318 actually received out of the English chancery, from the 3d of December, 1838, when it was received, at an interest of 6 per cent. per annum. He leaves the sum of $209,103, which is so much of the interest as will have accrued on the first day of July next, to be applied at once to the construction of buildings, the preparation of grounds, the purchase of books, instruments, and the like; and then appropriates the interest, and the interest only, of the original principal sum, for the perpetual maintenance of the institution, leaving the principal itself unimpaired forever. This, all, is exactly as it should be.

But when you examine the bill a little further, to discern what it is exactly which this considerable expenditure of money is to accomplish-when you look to see how and how much it is going "to increase and diffuse knowledge among men," I am afraid that we shall have reason to be a little less satisfied. I do not now refer to the constitution of the board of management, of which, let me say, under some important modifications, I incline to approve; although on that I reserve myself. I speak of what the fund, however managed, is to be made to do. The bill assumes, as it ought, to apply it "to increase and diffuse knowledge among men." Well, how does it accomplish this object?

It proposes to do so, for substance, by establishing in this city a school or college for the purpose of instructing its pupils in the application of certain physical sciences to certain arts of life. The plan, if adopted, founds a college in Washington to teach the scientific principles of certain useful arts. That is the whole of it. It appoints, on permanent salaries, a professor of agriculture, horticulture, and rural economy; a professor of natural history; a professor of chemistry; a professor of geology; a professor of astronomy; a professor of architecture and domestic science; together with a fluctuating force of occasional auxiliary lecturers; and all these professors and lecturers are enjoined "to have special reference, in all their illustrations and instructions, to the productive and liberal arts of life-to improvements in agriculture, manufactures, trades, and domestic economy." Thus, the professor of chemistry is to analyze different kinds of soils, and to learn and teach how to enrich them; the professor of natural history is to deal with noxious or useful animals and insects; the professor of geology is to illustrate the working of mines; the professor of astronomy is to teach navigation; the professor of architecture and domestic science is charged with the theory and practice of building, lighting, and ventillating all manner of edifices; and the professor of agriculture, horticulture, and domestic economy is to make experiments to see what exotics will grow and what will not, all over the United States. And, in pursuance of the same theory of administration of the fund, it is provided that not a book is to be purchased for the institution except "works on science and the arts, especially such as relate to the ordinary business of life, and to the various mechanical and

Senate.

other improvements and discoveries which may be made."

Now, I say that this creates a college or schoolsuch as it is on the basis of a somewhat narrow utilitarianism-to be sure, erroneously so called-but a college or academical institution. Who is to be taught agriculture, architecture, domestic science, rural economy, and navigation? Not you, Mr. President, I suppose, not Congress, not the government, not men at all. Students, pupils, youths, are to be brought hither, if you can find them; "rules and regulations" (so runs the 8th section of the bill) are to be made "for the admission into the various departments of the institution, and their conduct and deportment while they remain therein," and instruction is to be given them by professors and lecturers. This surely is a school, a college, an academical institute of education, such as it is, or nothing.

Well, sir, in reviewing, as I have had occasion to do, the proceedings of Congress upon this subject heretofore, I have received the impression that it had become quite your settled judgment-settled on the most decisive reasons-that no school, college, or acdemical establishment should be constituted. It seems that in the session of 1838 a joint committee of the two brauches was charged with this deliberation. The chairman of the committee from this body was Mr. Robbins, and the chairman, on the appointment of the House, was Mr. Adams; both of them, I may pause to say, persons of the most profound and elegant acquisition; both of them of that happy rare class who "grow old still learning.' The two committees differed on this very question whether a school or college should be established. The opinion of the committee of the House is expressed in the 4th section of the bill (No. 293 Senate) which they desired to report, and which is in these words:

"SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That no part of the said Smithsonian fund, principal or interest, shall be applied to any school, college, university, institute of education, or ecclesiastical establishment."

That of the committee of the Senate is distinctly enough intimated in the beautiful speech with which Mr. Robbins introduced the subject in January, 1839. I find it in the Appendix to the Congressional Globe:

"I could wish, if all were agreed in it, that this institution should make one of a number of colleges, to constitute a university to be established here, and to be endowed in a manner worthy of this great nation and their immense resources. But, as opinions are divided upon this subjectnot, I should hope, as to the great desirableness of such an establishment, but as to the constitutional competency of Congress to undertake it-I will not embarrass my present object by involving it with that subject. This, as an independent institution, may hereafter be made a part of such a university, should one be established; but it is now to be looked at only as an independent institution."

It was to embody and execute this conception that Mr. Robbins drew the Senate bill No. 292.

Finding themselves unable to agree, it was determined that each committee should report both of these bills to their respective Houses. On the 25th February, 1839, the bill drawn by Mr. Robbins was taken up in this body, and after an animated discussion, was laid on the table by a vote of 20 to 15. This vote is regarded, I perceive, by Mr. Adams, in his subsequent reports of 1840 and 1842, as expressing the judgment of the Senate against the establishment of such academical institute of learning. He says:

"It is then to be considered as a circumstance propitious to the final disposal of this fund, by the organization of an institution the best adapted to accomplish the design of the testator, that this first but erroneous impression of that design an institute of learning, a university, upon the foundation of which the whole fund should be lavished, and yet prove inadequate to its purpose, without large appropriations of public moneys in its aid-should have been presented to the consideration of Congress, referred to a numerous joint committee of both Houses, there discussed, reported for the deliberation of both Houses, fully debated in House where it originated, and then decisively rejected."

the

If such may be inferred to have been the judgment of the Senate, it may be defended on the most decisive reasons. It is hardly worth while to move

the question whether it would be expedient to apply the fund as far as it would go to the founding of ลป great university deserving of the name-a national university, in which all the branches of thorough education should be taught; which should fill the space between the college and professional schools which should guide the maturer American mind to the highest places of knowledge; for such should be the functions of such a university. It is not worth while to move this question, because no such proposition is before us. I am afraid, will

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

Mr. Adams, that to found such a university would consume the whole fund, interest and principal, almost at once, and reduce you to the alternative of a signal failure, or of occasional and frequent application to the government for aid which could never be granted. But the senator from Ohio contemplates no such thing. He constructs his college on a far more moderate model; and of this college of his I am constrained to say, that I think it in the actual state of academical education wholly unnecessary, and in a great degree useless. Why, sir, there are in the country more than a hundred colleges; I have seen them estimated at one hundred and seventy-three. These are distributed all over the United States; two are in this District. They are at the doors of the people. I suspect that every one of them has a professor for every department provided for in this bill, except architecture and domestic science, and agriculture, and rural economy. In every one, without any difficulty, that special attention here recommended, to the application of science "to the ordinary business of life," may be, if it is not now secured, if in the judgment of those who are entrusted with their management it is thought expedient. Why, sir, I secollect that navigation was taught in one at least of our common free district schools of Massachusetts thirty years ago. I cannot concur with the honorable framer of the bill, therefore, that his school is to "furnish facilities for the acquisition of such branches of knowledge as are not taught in the various universities." It will do no such thing. It will injure those universities, rather, if it has any effect, by withdrawing from them some portion of the patronage for which they are all struggling, and of which so few get a full meal.

Such a school, then, I think is scarcely now necessary. In this city it would be, to say no more, very far from generally useful. It would hardly appear to be an instrumentality coming up to the sonorous promise of "increasing and diffusing knowledge among men." Who would its pupils be? Who could afford to come all the way to Washington from the South, West, and North to learn architecture, navigation, and domestic science? Certainly only the sons of the wealthy, who would hardly come, if they could, to learn any such branch of homely knowledge. You might collect some few students in the District and the borders of the adjacent States; but for any purpose of wide utility the school would be no more felt than so much sunshine on the poles. Meantime here would be your professors, their salaries running on, your books, and apparatus, and edifices, a show of things-a pretty energetic diffusing of the fund, not much diffusion of knowledge.

I shall venture, then, to move to strike out all those parts of the bill which indicate the particular mode in which the bequest is to be applied to the increase and diffusion of knowledge. I except the provision for experiments in seeds and plants, on which I will say a word hereafter. If this motion prevails the whole question will recur, What shall we do with the fund?

It has seemed to me that there are two applications of it which may just now meet with favor.

In the first place, to begin with the least important, I adopt, with some modifications, the suggestion in the bill that lectures be delivered in this city for two or three months during every session of Congress. These lectures should be delivered not by professors permanently fixed here, upon annual salaries, to do nothing in the recess of Congress, or to do nothing that cannot be as well done at one hundred and fifty other places, but by gentlemen eminent in science and literature, holding situations elsewhere, and coming hither under the stimulations and with the ambition of a special and conspicuous retainer. They might be professors of colleges, men of letters, persons distinguished in the professions, or otherwise. Names will occur to you all which ĺ need not mention; and their lectures should be adapted to their audiences. Who would their audiences be? Members of Congress with their families, members of the government with theirs, some inhabitants of this city, some few strangers who occasionally honor us with visits of curiosity or business. They would be public men, of mature years and minds; educated, disciplined to some degree, of liberal curiosity, and appreciation of generous and various knowledge. Such would be the audience. The lectures should be framed accordingly. I do not think they should be confined to three or four physical sciences in their applications to the arts of life, navigation, useful or hurtful insects and animals, the ventilation of rooms, or the smoking of chimneys.

Smithsonian Institute-Mr. Choate.

This is knowledge, to be sure; but it is not all knowledge, nor half of it, nor the best of it. Why should not such an audience hear something of the philosophy of history, of classical and of South American antiquities, of international law, of the grandeur and decline of states, of the progress and eras of freedom, of ethics, of intellectual philosophy, of art, taste, and literature in its most comprehensive and noblest forms? Why should they not hear such lectures as Sir James Macintosh delivered when a young man to audiences among whom were Canning, and such as he? Would it not be as instructive to hear a first-rate scholar and thinker demonstrate out of a chapter of Greek or Italian history how dreadful a thing it is for a cluster of young and fervid democracies to dwell side by side, independent and disunited, as it would to hear a chemist maintain that to raise wheat you must have some certain proportion of lime in the soil? But the subjects of lectures would of course be adapted to time, place, and circumstances, and varied with them. Whatever they should treat of, they would be useful. They would recreate, and refresh, and instruct you. They would relieve the monotony, and soften the austerity, and correct all the influences of this kind of public service.

But, Mr. President, all this is no administration of the fund; all this ought to cost less than five thousand dollars a year. We could not sustain more than one lecture in a week, nor that for more than three months of any session. Here is an accumulated interest of two hundred thousand dollars; and here is an annual interest of thirty thousand, of which thus far I have provided for an expenditure of some five thousand only. What will you do with the rest?

It is easy to waste this money; it is easy to squander it in jobs, salaries, quackeries; it is easy, even under the forms of utility, to disperse and dissipate it in little rills and drops, imperceptible to all human sense, carrying it off by an insensible and ineffectual evaporation. But, sir, I take it that we all earnestly desire-I am sure the senator from Ohio does so-so to dispense it as to make it tell. I am sure we all desire to see it, instead of being carried off invisibly and wastefully, embody itself in some form, some exponent of civilization, permanent, palpable, conspicuous, useful. And to this end it has seemed to me, upon the most mature reflection, that we cannot do a safer, surer, more unexceptionable thing with the income, or with a portion of the income-perhaps twenty thousand dollars a year for a few years-than to expend it in accumulating a grand and noble public library-one which, for variety, extent, and wealth, shall be, and be confessed to be equal to any now in the world.

I say for a few years. Twenty thousand dollars a year, for twenty-five years, are five hundred thousand dollars; and five hundred thousand dollars discreetly expended, not by a bibliomaniac, but by a man of sense and reading, thoroughly instructed in bibliography, would go far, very far, towards the purchase of nearly as good a library as Europe can boast. I mean a library of printed books, as distinct from manuscripts. Of course such a sum would not purchase the number of books which some o'd libraries are reported to contain. It would not buy the 700,000 of the Royal Library at Paris, the largest in the world; nor the 500,000 or 600,000 of that of Munich, the largest in Germany; nor the 300,000, 400,000, or 500,000 of those of Vienna and St. Petersburg, and the Vatican at Rome, and Copenhagen, and the Bodleian at Oxford. But mere numbers of volumes afford a very imperfect criterion of value. Those old libraries have been so long in collecting; accident and donation, which could not be rejected, have contributed so much to them, a general and indiscriminate system of accumulation gathers up, necessarily, so much trash; there so many duplicates and quadruplicates, and so many books and editions which become superseded, that mere bulk and mere original cost must not terrify us. Ponderantur non numerantur. Aceordingly the Library of the University at Gottingen, consisting of perhaps two hundred thousand volumes, but well chosen, selected for the most part, within a century, and to a considerable extent by a single great scholar, (Heyne,) is perhaps to-day as valuable a collection of printed books as any in the world. Towards the accumulation of such a library, the expenditure of two-thirds of this income for a quarter of a century would make, let me say, a magnificent advance. And such a step taken, we should never leave the work unfinished; yet when it should be finished, and your library should rival anything which civilization has ever

Senate.

had to show, there would still be the whole principal of your fund unexpended, yielding its income forever, for new and varying application for increasing and diffusing knowledge in the world.

[Mr. CHOATE here read a letter of Professor Torry, of Burlington, showing at what reduced prices valuable books may now be purchased.]

I hesitate, from an apprehension of being accused of entering too far into a kind of dissertation unsuited to this assembly of men of business, to suggest and press one-half the considerations which satisfy my mind of the propriety of this mode of expenditure. Nobody can doubt, I think, that it comes within the terms and spirit of the trust. That directs us to "increase and diffuse knowledge among men." And do not the judgments of all the wisedoes not the experience of all enlightened Statesdoes not the whole history of civilization, concur to declare that a various and ample library is one of the surest, most constant, most permanent, and most economical instrumentalities to increase and diffuse knowledge? There it would be-durable as liberty, durable as the Union; a vast storehouse, a vast treasury, of all the facts which make up the history of man and of nature, so far as that history has been written; of all the truths which the inquiries and experiences of all the races and ages have found out; of all the opinions that have been promulgated; of all the emotions, images, sentiments, examples, of all the richest and most instructive literatures: the whole past speaking to the present and the future; a silent, yet wise and eloquent teacher; dead yet speaking-not dead! for Milton has told us that a "good book is not absolutely a dead thing-the precious life-blood rather of a master spirit; a seasoned life of man embalmed and treasured up on purpose to a life beyond life." Is not that an admirable instrumentality to increase and diffuse knowledge among men? It would place within the reach of our mind, of our thinkers, and investigators, and scholars, all, or the chief, intellectual and literary materials, and food and instruments, now within the reach of the cultivated foreign mind; and the effect would be to increase the amount of individual acquisition, and multiply the number of the learned. It would raise the standard of our scholarship, improve our style of investigation, and communicate an impulse to our educated and to the general mind. There is no library now in this country, I suppose, containing over 50,000 volumes. Many there are containing less. But, from the nature of the case, all have the same works; so that I do not know, that of all the printed books in the world, we have in this country more than 50,000 different works. The consequence has been felt and lamented by all our authors and all our scholars. It has been often said that Gibbon's history could not have been written here for want of books. I suppose that Hallam's Middle Ages, and his introduction to the literature of Europe could not. Irving's Columbus was written in Spain. Wheaton's Northmen was prepared to be written in Copenhagen. See how this inadequate supply operates. An American mind kindles with a subject; enters on an investigation with a spirit and with an ability worthy of the most splendid achievement; goes a little way, finds that a dozen books, one book, perhaps, is indispensable, which cannot be found this side of Gottingen or Oxford; it tires of the pursuit, or abandons it altogether, or substitutes some shallow conjecture for a deep and accurate research, and there an end. Let me refer to a passage or two of the complaints of studious men on this subject:

"An extensive library, answering to the wants of literary men who are to use it, is essential to the public and effec tual promotion of learning. In this country the want of large libraries, is a serious discouragement of superior attainments and accurate researches in almost every walk of study. The time necessary for reading or examining a particular book is often consumed in attempts to discover or obtain it; and frequently, after every effort, it cannot be procured. We are obliged to give over our inquiries on subjects where we would arrive at fullness and exactness in our knowledge, because destitute of the assistance which the learned, in the same track of study, have furnished, or to continue them under the disadvantage of ignorance respecting what has been done by others. Thus we are liable to be occupied in solving difficulties which have been al ready cleared, discussing questions which have been al ready decided, and digging in mines of literature which former ages have exhausted. Every one who has been in the way of pursuing any branch of study in our country beyond the mere elements, or the polite and popular litera. ture of the time, knows how soon the progress is often ar rested for want of books. This is not the case merely with persons of moderate means, who are unable to purchase a library of their own, but it is a want felt under the most favorable circumstances.

"It is also of great importance that the library of a university should not only be good, but very good, ample, my

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

nificent; a deposite of the world's knowledge. It is a griev ous thing to be stopped short in the midst of an inquiry for perhaps the very book that throws most light upon it; and the progress of learning must be small indeed among us, so long as the student must send across the Atlantic at every turn for the necessary aids to his pursuits. It is not with us as it is in Europe, where very many large libraries exist, and where what is not contained in one may be found in another; and the learned are able to aid each other's labors by furnishing mutually, as desired, ex racts and references to such books as may exist at one place and fail at another. To say nothing of our two best libraries being remote from each other and from many parts of the country, they are themselves, of course, inadequate. In making one tolerably complete department expressly chosen for that, and entirely devoted to it, we might easily comprise the amount of books in our largest collection. When it is added that the libraries mentioned are miscellaneous, their number of books small, as the sum total is scattered over all the parts of knowledge, and many introduced by separate contributions without mutual reference to each other, it is obvious that, comparatively speaking, the best must be extremely defec tive."-North American Review, vol. 8, p. 192.

"What public library in this country contains the materials for an accurate history of any one department of science? Take even the most limited, or rather one of the most recent of all, the science of political economy. Here our researches are confined to one definite period. We have no dusty archives to explore, no time-worn manuscripts to decipher. The origin of the science is within the memory of our fathers, and we ourselves have witnessed its sudden growth and rapid development. Yet how much is to be done, how many authorities to be weighed, how many different treatises to be analyzed and compared, before we can venture to say: Here is the history; for such was the rise, such the progress, such the changes of opinions, such the received and such the rejected theories of political economy The writers of the first French school, of the Scotch school. (and, if we wish for history, we must go beyond the publication of Adam Smith's great work,) the Italian, the new French, and the new English schools, all have not merely a claim upon our attention, but are entitled to a full and accurate examination. And even then our task would be incomplete; for literary justice would require us to trace, through, the works of general political writers, the hints and remarks which have contributed to the prog ress of the branch we are studying, by the discovery of truth or by the exposition of error. If such be the obligation of the student whose researches are confined to a subject so new, what must be the necessities of the historian who attempts to throw light upon those periods, for which the testimony of printed authorities is to he confronted with that of manuscripts and public documents, and where ig norance and prejudice have combined with the more pow erful incentives of interest to perplex his path by contradictory statements and conflicting opinions!

"Books are needed, not confined to any single branch, but embracing the whole range of science and of literature, which shall supply the means of every species of research and inquiry, and which, placed within reach of all, shall leave idleness no excuse for the lightness of its labors, and poverty no obstacles which industry may not sur

mount.

"Whoever reflects, though but for a moment, upon the numerous branches into which modern literature runs, and remembers that the literary glory of a nation can only be secured by a certain degree of success in each of them-whoever considers the immense mass of varied materials, without which no historical work of importance can be composed, or the extensive learning which is required of even the most gifted genius of an age like ours, and adds to these considerations the general and undeniable fact that of those who would gladly devote themselves to literature, but a few can ever hope to obtain by their own resources the command of the works that are essential to the suc cessful prosecution of their studies, will be ready to acknowledge that we have, as yet, done but a small part of what may be justly claimed from a nation which aspires to the first rank for the liberality, and politeness, and high moral tone of its civilization. Late, however, as we are to begin, scarce anything in this department has been accom. plished in Europe which might not be done with equal success in America. And so numerous and manifest are our advantages in some important particulars, that a prompt will and sound judgment in the execution of it might, in the course of a very few years, render the American student nearly independent of those vast collections which, in Europe, have required centuries for their formation. The undertaking, however, in order to be successful, should be a national one. Withont arguing that no State is fully equal to it, or that in the bounds of any single State it would not answer the same purpose, we n ay be permitted to say that the enlargement of the library of Congress upon those broad principles, the application of which to the collection of books has become a difficult and important art, would reflect an honor upon the country equal to the permanent advantages which it would secure to every member of the community."-North American Review, vol. 45, 137.

Yet these writers had access to the best library in this country.

Now there are very many among us, and every day we shall have more, who would feelingly adopt this language. Place within their reach the helps that guide the genius and labors of Germany and England, and let the genius and labors of Germany and England look to themselves! Our learned men would grow more learned and more able; our studies deeper and wider; our mind itself exercised and sharpened; the whole culture of the community raised and enriched. This is, indeed, to increase and diffuse knowledge among men.

If the terms of the trust, then, authorize this expenditure, why not make it? Not among the principal, nor yet the least of reasons for doing so, is, that all the while that you are laying out your mo

Smithsonian Institute-Mr. Choate.

ney, and when you have laid it out, you have the money's worth, the value received, the property purchased, on hand, to show for itself and to speakfor itself. Suppose the professors provided for in the bill should gather a little circle of pupils, each of whom should carry off with him some small quotient of navigation or horticulture, or rural economy, and the fund should thus glide away and evaporate in such insensible, inappreciable appropriations, how little there would be to testify of it! Whereas here, all the while, are the books; here is the value; here is the visible property; here is the oil, and here is the light. There is something to point to, if you should be asked to account for it unexpectedly, and something to point to, if a traveller should taunt you with the collections which he has seen abroad, and which gild and recommend the absolutisms of Vienna or St. Petersburgh.

Another reason, not of the strongest to be sure, for this mode of expenditure is, that it creates so few jobs and sinecures; so little salaried laziness. There is no room for abuses in it. All that you need is a plain, spacious, fire-proof building; a librarian and assistants; an agent to buy your books, and a fire to sit by. For all the rest, he who wants to read goes and ministers to himself. It is an application of money that almost excludes the chances of abuses altogether.

But the decisive argument is, after all, that it is an application the most exactly adapted to the actual literary and scientific wants of the States and the country. I have said that another college is not needed here, because there are enough now; and another might do harm as much as good. But that which is wanted for every college, for the whole country, for every studious person, is a well-chosen library, somewhere among us, of three or four hundred thousand books. Where is such a one to be collected? How is it to be done? Who is to do it? Of the hundred and fifty colleges, more or less, distributed over the country, one has a library of perhaps fifty thousand volumes; others have good ones, though less; others smaller, and smaller, down to to scarcely anything. With one voice they unite, teacher and pupil, with every scholar and thinker, in proclaiming the want of more. But where are they to come from? No State is likely to lay a tax to create a college library, or a city library. No deathbed gift of the rich can be expected to do it. How, then, is this one grand want of learning to be relieved? It can be done by you, and by you only. By a providential occurrence, it is not only placed within your constitutional power, but it has become your duty; you have pledged your faith; you have engaged to the dead and living that, without the charge of one dollar on the people, you, you will meet the universal and urgent demand by the precise and adequate supply. By such a library as you can collect here something will be done, much will be done, to help every college, every school, every studious man, every writer and thinker in the country to just what is wanted most. Inquirers after truth may come here and search for it. It will do no harm at all to pass a few studious weeks among these scenes. Having pushes their investigations as far as they may at home, and ascertained just what, and how much more, of helps they require, let them come hither and find it. Let them replenish themselves, and then go back and make distribution among their pupila: ay, through the thousand channels, and by the thousand voices of the press, let them make distribution among the people! Let it be so that

"Hither as to their fountains other stars
Repairing, in their golden urns, draw light."

I have no objection at all-I should rejoice rather -to see the literary representatives of an instructed people come hither, not merely for the larger legislation and jurisprudence, but for the rarer and higher knowledge. I am quite willing, not only that our "Amphyctionic Council" should sit here, but that it should find itself among some such scenes and influences as surrounded that old renowned assembly; the fountain of purer waters than those of Castalia; the temple and the oracle of our Apollo! It will do good to have your educated men come to Washington for what has heretofore cost voyages to Germany. They will be of all the parts of the country. They will become acquainted with each other. They will contract friendships and mutual regards. They will go away not only better scholars, but better unionists. Some one has said that a great library moulds all minds into one republic. It might, in a sense of which he little dreamed, help to keep ours together.

Senate.

I have intimated, Mr. President, a doubt whether a college or university of any description, even the highest, should be at present established here. But let it be considered by the enlightened friends of that object, if such there are, that even if your single purpose were to create such a university, you could possibly begin in no way so judiciously as by collecting a great library. Useful in the other modes which I have indicated, to a university it is everything. It is as needful as the soul to the body. While you are doubting, then, what to do, what you will have, you can do nothing so properly as to begin to be accumulating the books which you will require on whatever permanent plan of application you at last determine.

I do not expect to hear it said in this assembly that this expenditure for a library will benefit a few only, not the mass; that it is exclusive, and of the nature of monopoly. It is to be remembered that this fund is a gift; that we take it just as it is given; and that by its terms it must be disbursed here. Any possible administration of it, therefore, is exposed to the cavil that all cannot directly, and literally, and equally partake of it. How many and of what classes of youth from Louisiana, or Illinois, or New England, for example, can attend the lectures of your professor of astronomy? But I say it is a positive and important argument for the mode of application which I urge, that it is so diffusive. Think of the large absolute numbers of those who, in the succession of years, will come and partake di. rectly of these stores of truth and knowledge ! Think of the numbers without number who, through them, who by them indirectly, will partake of the same stores! Studious men will come to learn to speak and write to and for the growing millions of a generally educated community. They will learn that they may communicate. They cannot hoard if they would, and they would not if they could. They take in trust to distribute; and every motive of ambition, of interest, of duty, will compel them to distribute. They buy in gross, to sell by retail. The lights which they kindle here will not be set under a bushel, but will burn on a thousand hills. No, sir; a rich and public library is no antirepublican monopoly. Who was the old Egyptian king that inscribed on his library the words, the dispensary of the soul? You might quite as well inscribe on it, armory, and light, and fountain of lib. erty !

It may possibly be inquired what account I make of the library of Congress. I answer, that I think it already quite good and improving; but that its existence constitutes no sort of argument against the formation of such a one as I recommend. In the theory of it, that library is collected merely to furnish Congress and the government with the means of doing their official business. In its theory it must be, in some sort, a professional library; and the expenditure we now make-five thousand dollars in a year, or, as last year, two thousand and five hundred-can never carry it up to the rank and enable it to fulfil the functions of a truly great and general public library of science, literature, and art. The value of books which could be added under the appropriations of the last year, cannot greatly exceed twenty-two hundred dollars. Doubtless, however, in the course of forming the two, it would be expedient and inevitable to procure to a great extent dif

ferent books for each.

I do not think, Mr. President, that I am more inclined than another to covet enviously any thing which the older civilization of Europe possesses which we do not. I do not suppose that I desire, any more than you, or than any of you, to introduce here those vast inequalities of fortune, that elaborate luxury, that fantastic and extreme refinement. But I acknowledge a pang of envy and grief that there should be one drop or one morsel more of the bread or water of intellectual life tasted by the European than by the American mind. Why should not the soul of this country eat as good food and as much of it as the soul of Europe? Why should a German or an Englishman sit down to a repast of five hundred thousand books, and an American scholar who loves truth as well as he be put on something less than half allowance? Can we not trust ourselves with so much of so good a thing? Will our digestion be impaired by it? Are we afraid that the stimulated and fervid faculties of this young nation will be oppressed and overlaid? Because we have liberty which other nations have not, shall we reject the knowledge which they have and which we have not? Or will you not rather say, that, because we are free, therefore will we add to our free

28TH CONG.....2D SESS

dom that deep learning and that diffused cnlture which are its grace and its defence?

Mr. CHOATE then moved certain amendments in conformity with the views of his speech.

SPEECH OF MR. DOUGLASS,

OF ILLINOIS.

In the House of Representatives, January 6, 1845-In Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, on the joint resolutions for the annexation of Texas.

When Mr. WINTHROP concluded his remarksMr. DOUGLASS next obtained the floor, and renewed his motion, submitted some days since, to amend the amendment to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, by substituting the preamble and resolutions heretofore offered by him.

He proceeded to say, that he had listened with pleasure to the speech of the gentleman from Massachusetts on this occasion, as indeed he always did when that gentleman addressed the House. He had listened to him to-day, however, with more than usual interest, with the expectation of hearing a full exposition of all the grounds upon which the annexation of Texas to the United States was to be opposed, and was forcibly struck with the extraordinary position which he advanced in regard to the manner in which the discussion should be conducted. He has informued us that it is the duty of the friends of the measure to sustain its constitutionality, propriety, and expediency, by fair argument; while its opponents consider themselves under no obligation to do more than to maintain, in sullen silence, the firm resolve of opposition, and interpose a negative to each proposition. After this annunciation, he proceeds to denounce the project of annexation as a palpable violation of the constitution-a subversion of the principles of the federal Union-the adoption of an unjust foreign waran infraction of the laws of nations-and a breach of the national faith. This is truly a novel mode of conducting a discussion, and a very convenient one for those who adopt it. They are to raise objections, to deal in broad assertions and bold denunciations, without any obligation to sustain them by facts or arguments. Be it so. It is their privilege to select their own mode of conducting the opposition, and I do not complain of them for pursuing the course indicated for the reason that I have no doubt it is the most prudent one they could adopt.

The friends of annexation are willing to assume the affirmative, and undertake to demonstrate, by argument, not only the propriety and expediency of the measure, and the constitutional power to consummate it, but our right to do it in the manner proposed.

Mr. D. would here notice another remark of the gentleman from Massachusetts, in relation to the origin of the Texas question. That gentleman had been pleased to say that "this odious measure had been devised for sinister purposes by a President of the United States not elected by the people." If he has reference to President Tyler as the originator of the annexation question, I will inform him that he is doing great injustice to his friend and colleague, [Mr. ADAMS.] While I will not pluck from the brow of Mr. Tyler, or General Jackson, or of any other distinguished advocate of annexation, any of the laurels they have won by their zeal in behalf of the measure, I cannot permit such palpable injustice to the venerable gentleman from Massachusetts as to allow the origin of the movement to be traced to any other individual. It will be recollected that, in 1825, Mr. ADAMS (then President of the United States) directed his Secretary of State (Mr. Clay) to instruct our minister at Mexico to open_negotiations for the immediate reannexation of Texas to the United States; whereupon Mr. Clay immediately wrote his despatch to Mr. Poinsett, which I now hold in my hand, informing him of the wishes of the President in regard to the annexation of Texas, and instructing him to use his best efforts to secure the reunion of that country to this. I commend this letter especially to the friends of Messrs. Adams and Clay, as a clear exposition of the great and numerous advantages this country would derive from the annexation of Texas. Again, in 1827, Mr. Adams had the subject so much at heart, and was so anxious to secure an acquisition that would reflect so much credit upon his administration, and confer such benefits upon his country, renewed his instructions to his Secretary, and Mr. Clay wrote another

Annexation of Texas-Mr. Douglass.

letter amplifying upon his former one, and directing our minister to offer a large amount of money in or der to get Texas into the Union again. These efforts were considered among the proudest acts of that administration, and, if successful, would have been considered profitable investments in the capital stock of the next presidential campaign. But unfortunately they were unsuccessful, and that administration was deprived of the glory of the achievement, although it received due credit for its zeal and repeated efforts to accomplish so great a good for the country. It may not be amiss to remark, also, that, at the time these efforts to regain Texas were made, Mexico and Texas were both revolting colonies to the kingdom of Spain, and that a fierce and cruel war was then actually raging between the revolting colonies and the mother country, for independence on the one side and subjection on the other. If it will not be deemed unkind, I would like to inquire of the friends of Messrs. Adams and Clay on this floor, whether a treaty annexing Texas to this country, made at that time with the revolting colonies, while they were engaged in actual war with the mother country, would have been considered the adoption of an unjust and unconstitutional war-whether it would have been deemed a palpable violation of the laws of nations-of treaty. stipulations, and of national honor? I submit this question in all kindness and sincerity to those gentlemen who now think that we have no right to annex Texas, without the consent of Mexico. If there is any difference in the two cases, it is in favor of Texas, inasmuch as Mexico has no troops stationed in Texas, and has had none for the last nine years; whereas Spain had about six thousand troops in Mexico at the time Messrs. Adams and Clay were carrying on their negotiations for the annexation of Texas.

But I am digressing from the thread of my remarks. I was attempting to show that the Texas question was not a new one-that it did not originate with Mr. Tyler-and that it had for a long time engrossed the attention of the American people and government. By the fiat of the people, Gen. Jackson and Mr. Van Buren succeeded to the places of Messrs. Adams and Clay. One of the first acts of the new administration was to re-open negotiations for the annexation of Texas. By order of the President, Mr. Van Buren addressed a long despatch to Mr. Poinsett, in which he set forth the paramount importance of the measure as connected with the national defence, and natural boundaries of the country; the extension of our territory, commerce, trade, and political power; in short, all those weighty considerations showing that the acquisition would be a great national blessing. This letter of Mr. Van Buren was an admirable one, and I would commend its perusal again to his friends as well as his opponents, believing it would exert a very salutary influence. He instructed Mr. Poinsett to use his best endeavors to secure Texas, and directed him to give five millions of dollars for it, if necessary. Failing this time, the effort was renewed by Gen. Jackson and Mr. Livingston, his Secretary, in 1833, and again by Mr. Forsyth in 1835, which was the last effort, in consequence of the revolution in Texas.

I have thus sketched hriefly the history of our diplomacy upon this subject, for the purpose of correcting the statement of the gentleman from Massachusetts, that "this odious question was devised for sinister purposes by a President of the United States not elected by the people," and of doing justice to his colleague, Mr. ADAMS, and the others I have named, who were the real originators of the project. It is ungenerous in that gentleman to deprive his olleague of the credit which is his due, in originating this great measure. But it now occurs to me that perhaps I have misapprehended him, [Mr. WINTHROP He may have referred to his coleague, [Mr. ADAMS,] and probably did, when he said that "this odious question was devised for sinister purposes. by a President of the United States NOT elected by the PEOPLE." If the allusion was to his colleague, it was a very unkind one. To designate it as an "odious question devised for sinister purposes," and in that connection to taunt his colleague with not having been elected President by the people, is rather too great a liberty, I would think, for even one friend to take with another. If, on the contrary, he did not refer to his colleague, his statement is not sustained by the facts, as the official documents which I have just quoted abundantly prove.

The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. WINTHROP, and his friend from Pennsylvania, [Mr. J.

H. of Reps.

R. INGERSOLL,] seem to doubt whether the boundary of the United States, under the treaty of 1803, ever extended farther west than the Sabine, and the line agreed upon by the treaty with Spain in 1819. I trust that I will be able to remove these doubts, and satisfy them, by authority which they will be the last to impeach, that our territory under the treaty of 1803 not only extended to the Sabine, but actually reached the Rio del Norte. I could cite in support of this position a great variety of official documents and other proofs, but will content myself with relying upon the testimony of a witness whose learning, accuracy, and veracity they will not question. Tallude to the venerable gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS,] and his various official letters and notes to the representatives of the Spanish government, while he was Secretary of State under Mr. Monroe, and especially to the letter dated March 12, 1818, which I have in the large volume before me. Upon this authority I rely to establish the Rio del Norte as the western boundary of Louisiana, and consequently the western boundary line of the United States, under the treaty of 1803. The first settlements ever made in the country bordering on the Gulf of Mexico, between the Sabine and the Rio del Norte, were established by La Salle, on the bay of St. Bernard, near the Colorado, in 1685, under the authority of Louis XIV, King of France. These settlements, together with those on the Mississippi and the Illinois, formed the basis of the original French colony of Louisiana, which continued under the jurisdiction of the crown of France until 1762, when it was ceded and transferred to the King of Spain. The Spanish government held the colony of Louisiana, and exercised jurisdiction over it by virtue of the cession from France until the year 1800, when it was retroceded to France by the treaty of St. Ildefonso. France held the colony under the latter treaty until 1803, when she ceded it to the United States by what is usually called the Louisiana treaty. It is true that, in the treaty of 1762, by which Louisiana was ceded to Spain, no boundaries were designated; and in the treaty of retrocession in 1800, no other boundaries were specified than the general description that it included the colony of Louisiana, and "with the same extent it had when in the hands of France." The description in the treaty of 1803, ceding the same country to the United States, was in these terms: "with the same extent (following the treaty of St. Ildefonso) that it now has in the hands of Spain, and that it had when France possessed it, and such as it ought to be after the treaties subsequently entered into be tween Spain and other states." From these treaties and facts it is clear that the United States acquired all the country situate within the limits of the original French colony of Louisiana. I have not only the authority of the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. ADAMS,] in the correspondence referred to, but a vast variety of documentary proof, collected by him, for saying that France always claimed the Rio del Norte as the western boundary of Louisiana, while it belonged to her. I have also the same authority for saying that there is reason to believe that Spain_ regarded the same river as the boundary while Louisiana belonged to her under the cession from France. In support of this opinion, among many other evidences, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS] referred to a Sanish geographical work of high authority, and also to a map by Lopez, geographer to the King of Spain, in both of which the Rio Del Norte is delineated as the western boundary of Louisiam as ceded to Spain. Thus we find (unless that distinguished gentlemen has misled us on this point) that France and Spain regarded the Rio Del Norte as the boundary during the periods they held the country respectively. That the United States always regarded our title as perfect under the treaty of 1803, as far west as the Rio Del Norte, there can be no question, until Texas was ceded to Spain by the unfortunate treaty of 1819. When discussing this point in 1805, Messrs. Monroe and Pinckney on the part of the United States said to the Spanish government that "the facts and principles which justify this conclusion are so satisfactory to this government as to convince it that the United States have not a better right to the Island of New Orleans, under the cession referred to, than they have to the whole district of territory thus described." In 1816, Mr. Monroe (Secretary of State under Mr. Madison) in his lette: to the Chevalier de Onis, said "with respect to the western boundary of Louisiana, I have to remark, that

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

this government has never doubted, since the treaty of 1803, that it extended to the Rio Bravo." In 1818 Mr. Adams (Secretary of State under Mr. Monroe) after reviewing all the facts and proofs on both sides relating to the western boundary of Louisiana, and quoting the statements I have just read, used this language: "well might Messrs. Pinckney and Monroe write to Mr. Cevallos in 1805, that the claim of the United States to the boundary of the Rio Bravo was as clear as their right to the Island of New Orleans."

I could go on and multiply proof upon proof, and authority upon authority to the same point; but it is unnecessary. I presume I have produced enough to remove the doubts from the minds of the gentlemen from Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, and to satisfy them that the Rio Bravo Del Norte, and not the Sabine, was the western boundary of the United States under the treaty of 1803. I now pass to the consideration of another grand discovery which the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. J. R. INGERSOLL] has made and disclosed to the House in regard to that boundary. After the most extensive research and laborious investigation, he has discovered that the Sabine was made the boundary line of the United States in 1812, by the act of Congress admitting the State of Louisiana into the Union, and not by the treaty of 1819, as many persons have erroneously supposed. He has brought this startling, astounding fact before the House with an air of triumph, and pronounced it a complete vindication of the conduct of his friend from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS] against the unjust charge of having surren dered Texas to Spain in the negotiation of that treaty. Although relying implicitly at all times on any fact stated by that gentleman, my curiosity could not possibly be restrained from peeping into that wonderful act of Congress, which not only admitted a new State into the Union, but, in addition, established a boundary line between two foreign nations. It occurred to me that if the gentleman was correct in his facts, he had furnished a case in which Con gress had, by a legislative act, made a contract be tween two foreign nations establishing a boundary, which he would call a treaty, and thereby annihilated another part of his own argument, which was that Congress did not possess the constitutional power to make any contract whatever with a foreign nation. It also occurred to me that if that act made the Sabine the western boundary of the United States, merely because it designated that river as the boundary line of the State of Louisiana, by the same course of reasoning it would make the northern boundary of that State the boundary line of the United States also, and thus eject Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, and Nebraska, as well as Texas, from the Union. A kind regard for my friends in that region induced me to look into that singular act of Congress; and here it is:

"Whereas, the representatives of all that part of the territory or country ceded, under the name of Louisiana,' by the treaty made at Paris, on the 30th day of April, one thou sand eight hundred and three, between the United States and France, contained within the following limits, that is to say: beginning at the mouth of the Sabine; thence by a line drawn along the middle of said river," &c.

Going on to describe the boundaries of the State of Louisiana, and admitting it into the Union. Not one word about the boundary of the United States, nor the most remote allusion to it. On the contrary, it expressly states that it includes only a part of the country purchased of France, contained within certain limits, and of course leaves the residue to be organized into Territories and States, when, and in such manner, as Congress should direct. So it fortunately turns out that Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, and Nebraska are still in the Union, and that Texas would have been but for the fatal treaty of 1819.

Inasmuch, then, as the Rio del Norte was the western boundary of Louisiana, and Texas was included in the cession of 1803, all the inhabitants of that country were, by the terms of the treaty, naturalized and adopted as citizens of the United States; and all who migrated there between 1803 and 1819 went under the shield of the constitution and laws of the United States, and with the guaranty that they should be forever protected by them. That treaty not only ceded the territory to the United States and adopted the inhabitants as citizens, but contained the following clause, the stipulations of which are in the nature of articles of compact between France, the United States and the inhabitants of the ceded territory, and were necessarily irrevocable, except by common consent, to wit:

"The mhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorpora ted into the union of the United States, and admitted as soon

Annexation of Texas-Mr. Douglass.

as possible, according to the principles of the federal constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States; and, in the mean time, shall be protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess."

To the fulfilment and observance of each and all of these stipulations the sacred faith and honor of this nation were solemnly and irrevocably pledged. Yet in direct violation of each one of them, Texas, including all its territory and inhabitants, was, by the treaty of 1819, ceded to Spain, the faith of the nation was broken, and its honor tarnished. The American republic was severed, and a part of its territory joined to a foreign kingdom. American citizens were transformed into the subjects of a for eign despotism. Native-born citizens were deprived of their dearest and proudest inheritance-those glorious institutions which their fathers had purchased by their blood and transmitted to their children unimpaired; and the adopted citizens were stripped of those rights for the enjoyment of which they had received in pledge the honor of the republic. What plea can we urge in behalf of our country, not in justification, but in palliation of the enormity of these acts? It has been said that the possession of Florida was essential to our peace and security as a nation, and that it was thought best to exchange Texas for it, and give a few millions of dollars to boot. Admit it. But this explanation does not fulfil the treaty-does not preserve our faith-redeem our honor. Texas did not voluntarily assent to the separation; nay, she protested against it, promptly, solemnly, and in a spirit that becomes men who, knowing their rights, were determined to maintain them. I hold in my hand the protest and declaration of independence by the supreme council of Texas, in June, 1819, only a few months after the signing of the treaty. The whole document will be found in the library, open to the inspection of all who may desire to see it. I will therefore detain the House only while I read a short extract:

"The recent treaty between Spain and the United States of America has dissipated an illusion too long fondly cherished, and has roused the citizens of Texas from the torpor into which a fancied security had lulled them. They have seen themselves, by a convention to which they were no party, abandoned to the dominion of the crown of Spain, and left a prey not only to impositions already intolerable, but to all those exactions which Spanish rapacity is capable of devising. The citizens of Texas would have proved themselves unworthy of the age in which they live-unworthy of their ancestry of the kindred republics of the American continent-could they have hesitated in this emergency as to what course to pursue. Spurning the fetters of colonial vassalage-disdaining to submit to the most atrocious despotisar that ever disgraced the annals of Europe--they have resolved, under the blessing of God, to be FREE."

Yes, on that day, under the blessing of God, they resolved to be FREE; and most nobly have they maintained that righteous resolve, first against the despotism of Spain, and then the tyranny of Mexico, until, on the plains of San Jacinto, victory established their independence, and made them free. Having achieved their independence by the same means, and secured it by the same title as our fathers of the revolution, they have assumed their place among the nations of the earth, and now call upon us to redeem our pledge of honor, and receive them into the Union, according to the stipulations of the treaty of 1803. How can we refuse this request? I repeat the question emphatically, What right have we to refuse? Does not the treaty guaranty their admission? Does not the constitution declare that treaty to be the supreme law of the land? And is not every member on this floor sworn to support that constitution? How, then, can we avoid the obligation? Our opponents tell us that, having sold Texas, and received what, at the time, was considered a fair equivalent, we have lost our claim, and forfeited our right to that country. I admit that we have parted with our right-lost it forever, and are estopped from ever reasserting it. I make the admission to the fullest extent, and in the deepest humiliation. But we have no right to set up our own wrong as an excuse for refusing to do justice to Texas. A breach of faith on our part does not absolve us from the moral or legal obligation to fulfil our solemn treaty stipulations, when required by the other party. We have no right to claim Texas, but Texas has a right to claim-to demand admission into the Union in pursuance of the treaty of 1803. The opponents of annexation can discourse eloquently and feelingly upon the sanctity of treaty stipulations and the sacred observance of national faith, when there is an outstanding bond in the hands of some banker for the payment of a small pittance of money; but when human rights, the rights of person and property-of religious freedom-the

H. of Reps.

glorious privileges of American citizenship, are all involved in the guaranty, the doctrine of repudiation loses its horrors and its infamy, and dwindles into miserable insignificance in their estimation. When a nation violates her faith, and repudiates her contracts, she is on the downward road to degradation and ruin, as inevitably as the individual who first becomes a gambler, and then turns high

wayman.

Without dwelling upon the numerous advantages that would attend the annexation of Texas, in stimulating the industry of the whole country; in opening new markets for the manufactures of the North and East; in the extension of commerce and navigation; in bringing the waters of Red river, the Arkansas and other streams flowing into the Mississippi, entirely with our territorial limits; in the augmentation of political power; in securing safer and more natural boundaries, and avoiding the danger of collisions with foreign powers-without dwelling upon these and other considerations, appealing to our interests and pride as a people and a nation, it is sufficient argument with me that our honor and violated faith require the immediate reannexation of Texas to the Union.

While he entertained these views, (said Mr. D.,) and anxious as he was for their speedy consummation, he fully agreed with gentlemen on the other side, that, if Texas was annexed, (as he firmly believed it would be,) it must be done in accordance with the principles of the constitution. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. WINTHROP] has taken high ground upon this subject, and denied the existence of the constitutional power in this government to annex foreign territory, or to extend its jurisdiction by any means whatever beyond its original limits. He has defined his position fairly, and assumed it with a boldness that exhibits his confidence in its correctness. He has gone farther, and confined himself strictly within the line he marked out for himself and friends in his opening remarks. He raised the question-suggested the difficultyplaced the block in our way, and left us to remove it, and clear the path for those who shall follow us. He does not consider it incumbent upon him to sustain the objection; it was sufficient for him to make it. Well, I am not sure but what this was the more prudent course. The little foretaste that that gentleman and his political associates had in the discussion of this anexation question before the people throughout the length and breadth of the

confederacy, during e presidential campaign, has taught them a l to profit by. They perience, and are not

ch they seem disposed earned wisdom from excaught again in a full discussion of this question, in all its bearings, before the country. Never was an issue presented to the American people more directly and distinctly, and never was the enlightened judgment of the nation pronounced more emphatically in approbation of any measure then in the late election in favor of the annexation of Texas. It was the watchword-the war cry-the rallying point of one party, and the target at which the missiles and thunderbolts of the other were mainly directed. It was the main point of attack and defence, and in a great degree controlled the result of the contest. The victorious party come into power upon this more than any other issue, and is committed by every principle of honor and dutyby its promises, professions, and pledges, faithfully to execute the will of the people in this respect. The President elect stands erect upon this question, ready to carry the verdict of the people into effect; and we will prove faithless, and deserve to be condemned and repudiated by an honest and indignant people, if we fail to practice after election what we professed before. But while our duty in this respect is plain, and immediate action is required, it must be done with a scrupulous regard, not only to the prin ciples, but the forms of the constitution. It becomes our duty, therefore, to examine fairly the constitutional difficulty which the gentleman from Massachusetts has attempted to thrust in our way. I will call his attention, and that of the House, not only to the constitution and the proceedings of the conven tion by which it was formed, but to the articles of eonfederation, in order to trace the history of the provision providing for the admission of new States. During the revolutionary war there was a general desire that Canada should make common cause with the thirteen original States, and be received into the Union.

Hence a provision was incorporated into the ar ticles of confederation, that Canada might be admit ted as of right upon acceding to the terms of con