32D CONG.....2D SESS.

Acquisition of Cuba-Canada-Mr. Bell.

them, we are not going to war with you for this citizens and their property, under their local interritory and these people; you have rights to all stitutions, as guarantied to them by the Constithese. Would not the interests of these great tution and laws of this country, shall enjoy equal nations be promoted and benefited by your with-protection with those of the North; still, I say to drawing all claim to them, or over the territory, and permit these colonies, if they choose, to become a part and parcel of this Government, and link their destinies with this nation?

By the annexation of this territory on the north you would increase your navigation and commercial interest, and the value of every foot of soil in that country fourfold. It is a fact known to those who reside on our northern frontier, that land within Canada of the same quality as land within the United States, separated only by a line of the nature of the one which divides our townships, is only worth about one quarter as much as the land within the United States; and what portion of this Union has a greater interest in the accomplishment of that object than the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and New York? Consider for a moment those great lakes to the north, inland seas, surrounded by territory under the control of our own Government, instead of the limit of a midway channel. The accomplishment of that object peacefully will strengthen this Union, and add to its power and influence. The annexation of that territory to this Union (to use terms of gentlemen) Destiny has ordained, and it will ere long take place.

the advocates of this measure, whether from the North or South, East or West, that the people of the free States never will consent to the addition of slaveholding territory, simply for securing the balance of power or the extension of territory. While they desire to protect their southern brethren in all of their rights, they will oppose the increase of slavery. And why? Because they believe that by becoming responsible as the guardians of additional slave territory, they will act in opposition to the spirit of the Constitution, to the interest of the nation, to the progress of the age, and contrary to their own convictions of duty, and the injunctions of God Almighty. My friend from Georgia, [Mr. STEPHENS,] asks whether they did not agree to let Texas in? Surely they did; and why? I trust they were governed by such motives as I would always ascribe to my friend from Georgia. They were not governed by their own desires, but were willing to yield something for the purpose of compromising difficulties, and preserving the rights of all parties.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. If similar questions were hereafter to arise, would they not display the same compromising and national spirit?

Mr. BELL. I will endeavor to answer the gentleman's question. He asks me, because we have been liberal, and gone almost beyond the bounds of patriotism-because we have heretofore compromised our prejudices and feelings for the purpose of maintaining the integrity and good feeling of this country, that we shall do the like again. I am not prepared to say what I would not do to preserve this Union, but I would avoid testing the local prejudices of the different sections of this country. When you see breakers ahead, keep the craft near the shore. That is the policy we adopt as individuals, and which we should carry out as a nation. Whenever the question of the annexation of Cuba arises, it will not come alone: it will be accompanied by the question of the annexation of the vast territory to the north, and it may be that the equipoise of additions of territory will do away with apprehended danger. But, sir, I would avoid the alternative of making the experiment.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the time will not arrive when it may become necessary for this nation to engage in a war for the acquisition or possession of Cuba, or any other island or territory, for the purpose of preserving and protecting our maritime interests or national rights. But, should that time ever come, whether brought about by European diplomacy or aggression upon our rights by any Power, whether upon this or other continents, I am free to declare that I should wish this Government to act under the circumstances as our national interests and honor should require; and if necessary to preserve these to acquire more territory-Čuba or other territory south or north, without regard to any local interests-I would say as an American citizen, let it be done. But now we are at profound peace with all the nations of the world, and have no cause to quarrel about the possession of Cuba, or any other territory. I| am opposed to the agitation of this question at the present time, because I believe it will be a renewal of those exciting scenes witnessed within the past few years. I am well satisfied that no Union man, and especially no man who has felt that he was the advocate of those compromise measures which, it was said, were calculated to preserve the Union, can be in favor of the agitation of questions that will result in bringing about the sectional feeling that existed at the passage of those measures. The annexation, or the attempt to annex Cuba, must inevitably bring up those questions which were pending during the Congress preceding this one, and which were then intended to be settled by the series of measures called the compromise. It will not do to say or imagine that those ques-ciple out of which this controversy grew was settions will not arise again under similar circumstances.

I hold that it is the duty of every citizen of our Government, when he sees danger in the advocacy or bringing forward of a particular measure, to point it out at the earliest possible time; and I would, therefore, warn these people, and especially the advocates of the annexation of Cuba, that there is danger in the bringing forward of such a measure before the public mind of this country; for so soon as it is, the exciting question of slavery will be introduced. The slave population of the United States, at this time, have a representation upon this floor equal to that of the States of New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Iowa, Wisconsin, and California; or equal to that of Indiana and Illinois; or equal to the entire representation of the State of Ohio. And the annexation of Cuba would add to the slave representation in Congress equal to four additional members. Now, however much we may desire and I claim to be one of those who desire that the laws of Congress shall be faithfully administered and executed, affording equal protection to the rights of citizens of one State, as well as to those of another-that the southern States, their

Mr. Chairman, my honorable friend from Georgia on a former occasion, if I understood him correctly, to quiet the fears that some honorable members might have as to the danger to be apprehended from the annexation of Cuba, said that the principle settled in the compromise act would apply and extend to the acquisition of other territory than that Congress was then || acting upon. I enter my protest against any such construction. Nothing was settled by that act but what had reference to the territory then acquired.

Mr. STEPHENS. While I stated that the settlement covered only the territory, yet the prin

tled, and it was that this Government should never interfere at all with the domestic institutions of a foreign State, within a Territory or a State, leaving it for the people in the Territory to manage them as they pleased. That was the principle settled in the compromise; and by adherence to this principle, it will be utterly impossible for a controversy to arise.

Mr. BELL. I understand the gentleman now as I did before. I did not aim to misrepresent him. But where does he get his authority for that assumption, that the Congress preceding this was more wise, patriotic, and had more enlarged views, or were more devoted and attached to this Government and its institutions, than that Congress which framed, adopted, and established the ordinance of 1787, for governing the territory northwest of the river Ohio? Let the fruits of that ordinance speak. Let that mighty Northwest, with its teeming millions of population and its wonderful improvements, speak as to the result and the benefits of that ordinance. There we have an evidence of the fruits and benefits of the wisdom of that ordinance, which said that no slave should live northwest of the Ohio river.

Mr. STEPHENS. That ordinance was not

HO. OF REPS.

passed by Congress since this Constitution was framed. Not at all. Since the beginning of this Government the great principle in controversy between the North and South was never settled until 1850. The gentleman asks where I got the authority that it was settled. I got it in the act making a Territorial Government in Utah and New Mexico, in which it is expressly declared that the people of these Territories, when they desire to come into the Union, can come in with or without slavery, as they please. As I stated before, it was the first time since the formation of this Government when that principle has been placed upon the records of the Congress of the United States.

Mr. BELL. I repeat, again, that the settlement of that question was a settlement of the then pending questions only, and which will go to the credit of those men who sacrificed their personal predilections for the purpose of compromise. I say that the settlement, as to the organization of these Territories, by its language and by its terms and spirit, was only intended for the present time, and fixing the rights of the people of those Territories as prescribed and limited by the acts adopted. The very meaning of compromise is that a controversy is not settled upon generally recognized principles, but that there is a meeting half way of conflicting views and opinions for the purpose of terminating some particular question. But the gentleman said that the ordinance of 1787 was not passed after the adoption of the Constitution. Does that deteriorate from the wisdom, foresight, and principles of that Congress as recognized by the fathers of this Government? No! They were fresh from Congress Hall-the hall of independence, breathing as it were the spirit of liberty; and millions of human beings will hereafter, as they have before, bless that Congress for laying down the landmarks that forbid slavery within this territory.

But, sir, what says the third and fourth sections of the fourth article of that Constitution that my honorable friend has referred to?

SEC. 3. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting, the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

SEC. 4. The United States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Then, sir, according to my construction of that instrument, Congress has full power over her territory to prohibit slavery or not, as the wisdom of that body may determine, and that right has never been changed or taken away by the action of Congress or the people, by any change in our organic law.

I have already addressed the committee longer than I intended. When I heard the remarks of my friend from Georgia, [Mr. STEPHENS,] of the gentleman from Oregon, [Mr. LANE,] and the gentleman from California, [Mr. MARSHALL, I only had it in view to rise and enter my protest, as one of the members of this House, against their construction of that compromise.

Mr. STEPHENS. Perhaps the gentleman was never a friend to it.

Mr. BELL. My honorable friend from Georgia knows that I had not the honor of a seat in this House at that time. Had I been a member here at the time-for I have nothing to conceal, and those who know me here will give me that credit, at least-I should not have voted for all of those measures known as the compromise acts.

Mr. STEPHENS. That is what I expected. Mr. BELL. There is nothing new about that. But, sir, if the question was now pending whether that law, which was considered the most objectionable, should now be repealed, I should say no. As I have said to my constituents, give us peace, give us quiet, although there are some things in that act which I believe wrong, and contrary to principles of justice. But I would forego those objections, and I would not agitate the subject. I would not now repeal the act, but give it a fair trial.

32D CONG.....2D SESS.

Mr. STEPHENS. What are those great principles?

'Mr. BELL. I have not time to answer my friend. They will show for themselves. When I said I have nothing to conceal, is it because the compromise acts appear to have become popular, and I could easily fall in with the popular cry. No; I will do what I believe to be right if I stand alone; and when I say I would not agitate it, but let it remain for the present, this opinion may run counter to the views of many of my constituents. But I tell you the views of the great mass of my constituents, and of the people generally in my State, are, let it alone until it has a fair trial. What I desire now is, that those who claim to be such warm friends of the compromise, as well as those who opposed them, shall, by the influence of their votes and voices, prevent the agitation of similar questions, which gave rise to so much excitement and recrimination of feeling.

Mr. Chairman, there are some other questions that have been discussed before this committee that I should like to say something about, but my time has nearly expired, and I can only refer to them briefly. I regret, sir, that some of the opponents of the measure proposing to confer the title of lieutenant general upon General Scott, have deemed it necessary in their opposition to attack or consider the private character of that old veteran hero. For it is hard to entirely separate, in this country, the public and private character of our citizens and officers; and the history and public character and services of General Scott, for the last forty years, have become a part and parcel of the history of this Government. His services and sacrifices are known to the people of this country, and the more they are canvassed and examined, the higher will they be appreciated by his countrymen. Although he has been defeated for the high civil office for which his political friends had placed him in nomination, yet there has been instances before of temporary defeat being the harbinger of final success.

Some honorable members have given vent to their indignation before the committee in attacks upon the present Administration, as well as General Taylor's, in regard to our foreign relations. But, when the official papers are brought forward, it appears that all the charges they prefer against General Taylor or President Fillmore's administration, if they have any foundation at all, are applicable only and apply to their own friends and their own party, and that the present, as well as General Taylor's Cabinet, have, with master wisdom, maintained our interests and foreign relations with a watchful care and truly American spirit. But why, sir,—since the elections are over, and there is now no longer any political capital to be made,why all these unfounded charges, and of a character that should only be expected preceding a great political campaign for political effect? I will tell

you.

Lieutenant General, &c.-Mr. Skelton.

broken up about as soon as it was formed, and before half of four years shall roll around.

Mr. Chairman, some honorable members upon the other side of the House have spoken about the defeat and disbanding of the Whig party. It is true, sir, we have been defeated, but not conquered. No person is deserving the name of Whig, unless he can bear defeat in defending his principles. I believe it to be the duty of the Whigs, as well as every other citizen, to sustain an Administration, whether of our friends or opponents, in all measures we think are calculated to promote the interest of our common country; as well as to oppose all that we believe prejudicial. The Whig party dead? No, sir-No, sir! As long as the principles of Washington and our revolutionary sires are revered and esteemed-as long as our republican form of Government shall last-the Whig party will continue to exist, to support and maintain those principles-sustain and support the Republic and our glorious institutions.

LIEUTENANT GENERAL, &c.

SPEECH OF HON. C. SKELTON,
OF NEW YORK,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
January 10, 1853.

The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on the bill making appropriations to supply deficiencies in the appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1854Mr. SKELTON said:

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I propose, upon this occasion, to avail myself of the latitude usually allowed in this committee, for the discussion of subjects not immediately under consideration. My apology for thus departing from what I conceive to be the correct rule with regard to the business of this House is, that the propositions which I design to discuss on this occasion are about to be thrust before this House without an opportunity of discussing them when they are presented. I am, therefore, placed in this position, that I have either to avail myself of the latitude allowed in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, or to forego entirely an expression of sentiment upon questions which I believe to be of vital importance to the best interests of my country.

and tending to and aiming at the same end. I speak of the bill granting the title of lieutenant general, of the bill pending in the Senate creating a retired list in our Army and Navy, and of another proposition which has been recently introduced into the Senate to increase the salaries of our foreign ministers. One or all of these propositions, I propose very briefly to discuss-all of them if my time will permit.

Sir, we have for some days past had a proposition pending before this House, by a motion for a suspension of the rules, to introduce a bill from the Senate, which has passed that body by a large majority, granting the title of lieutenant general to General Scott. I propose, sir, if my time will admit of it, briefly to glance at that proposition, and one or two other propositions now pending before the Senate, and which are likely to be presented to this House before the close of the present session-propositions which stand connected toThe triumphant party in the last political strug-gether, embracing one general principle of policy, gle, now made up of not only the Democratic party proper, but of all the discordant elements in professed political creeds in the country,-brought together upon the celebrated Baltimore platform, and in which each section claims a plank, and brought upon that platform by the cohesive power of the love of office, and not by any great principle that they held in common,-this new party are about to take upon themselves the entire responsibility of the administration of this Government, executive as well as legislative, the latter of which they already have. This party of the last canvass, having advocated as many different political doctrines as there are different sections or localities of the country, know well that all of their different and antagonistic political theories cannot be adopted and carried out by the incoming Administration. Hence the necessity of getting up new issues and talking about any and everything, but especially to make some charge against the Administration, to turn the attention of the people from the acts of the Democratic party, or in other words, the Pierce party, until after there should be a division of the spoils, and prevent a disruption of their party. Such a game, however, will not take this time. I would just say to our Democratic friends on the other side of the House, employing the terms used by some, that "destiny" has settled the question that their party is to be divided and

Mr. Chairman, in discussing the proposition to grant the title of lieutenant general to General Scott-for it is understood that the office or the honor will be conferred upon him if the bill shall pass this House-I do not propose to enter into any consideration of the merits or demerits of General Scott as a military commander. A question in regard to the merits or demerits of General Scott is not one that I believe would be appropriate to this House at the present time. General Scott is an American general, known to the American people. He is an individual to whose reputation the future historian of our country will do justice, and, for that reason, whatever remarks I may make will not be considered as personal to General Scott, either asserting or denying his merits or demerits. 1 object to this proposition as a precedent-as a great leading measure in the policy of this great American Republic. The only argument that I have heard urged here in favor of granting this

Ho. OF REPS.

honor to General Scott is, that all the other American generals who were engaged in the late war with Mexico have been rewarded by higher titles, and that he alone has not received any higher title or honor from the American Government. Well, sir, just look at that proposition, and see where it will lead you to. General Scott has heretofore received the highest military title that is known to the laws of the United States. Why, sir, with the same propriety you might urge the granting of a higher title to a faithful President. When a man is elected to the Presidency of the United States, he has attained the top of the ladder; and if you desire to create new titles and honors for the reward of eminent services, you will be compelled to add to the title of President that of Emperor. Our republican institutions, sir, know no titles of honor. We give names to our military officers because names are necessary; hence, we call General Scott major general. He has now the highest military position that can be conferred upon him by the American people-that of Commander-in-Chief of the American forces.

But, asked a gentleman upon this floor, the other day, if you do not confer additional titles and honors, and do justice to our military commanders, will our military commanders fight the battles of our country? I ask that gentleman if General Scott has been fighting for the title of lieutenant general? Would General Scott have fought the battles of his country better if he had been sure that title would have been conferred upon him? Is it for empty titles that our generals fight? Sir, if so, the sooner we get rid of them as a class the better. They are not republicans if they fight for titles of distinction, for empty titles and honors. The American nation knows no honorary titles. We abhor them as anti-democratic, and in contravention with our republican institutions.

Sir, is it necessary that this title should be created at the present time, to improve and to benefit the military service of our country? If it was—if a useful purpose to the interests of the country could be accomplished by it, I should be willing to entertain the proposition and to consider it. But, sir, we are in a state of profound peace. General Scott has all the power as commander-inchief that can be conferred upon him even with higher titles and honors. Hence, the proposition, stripped and presented in its true aspect, is one simply to flatter the vanity of a man who is now at the head of the American Army. Sir, it is beneath the American nation to flatter the vanity of any man. Render to every man the meed of just praise for his deeds of daring and bravery, but withhold that which creates vanity and elevates a man above his true position and his country.

But, sir, this proposition embraces a very important political principle. Our country is but in its infancy. Our republican institutions and our Government, although we possess immense power and resources, are yet in their forming stage. Shall we as an American people be true to our principles of integrity, humility, honesty and republicanism; or shall we go abroad to the rotten nations of the Old World and take pattern after the monarchies of Europe that have for ages oppressed and crushed the laboring masses of the nations? This is the question presented to the American people: Shall we administer our Government with simplicity and economy-giving to every man a just meed of praise, and empty titles to none; or shall we go on worshipping military glory and military heroism, and departing from the straightforward, upright path of republican simplicity? Why, sir, who will hesitate a moment to condemn these things? How have we got them? From whence have we obtained them? The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. SMITH] gave us a succinct history of the life and services of the great English general, the Duke of Wellington, showing with what rapidity the British Government heaped titles and honors upon him, and not only titles and honors, but emoluments and wealth sufficient to have broken the back of any man save General Scott or Lord Wellington.

Sir, the British Government piled upon Wellington an immense revenue, drawn from the hard earnings of the laboring masses of England, ta fatten and pamper him in luxury and idleness, Now, sir, shall we follow in the footsteps of these

32D CONG.....2D SESS.

our illustrious predecessors, or shall we mark out for ourselves a path of American republicanisma path in which we have no honorary distinctions of this kind?

Why, sir, what was the notion of our forefathers who framed our glorious Constitution, upon this subject? We find a clause in that Constitution to this effect:" No titles of nobility shall be granted by the United States." What means this? Why did our forefathers thus frame the Constitution of our glorious Union? Was it right? Yes, sir, it is one of the wisest provisions, in my opinion, of that most memorable instrument which the history of the world has ever seen. Sir, we should adhere to the native simplicity of that instrument. General Scott is commander-in-chief of the American forces. Millard Fillmore is President of the United States. We know Millard Fillmore only by the title of President of the United States. Why not call Millard Fillmore "lieutenant President of the United States," or "lord lieutenant President of the United States," "lord lieutenant of the United States," or, if it will flatter your vanity still more, why not call him "Emperor" of this great and mighty empire? Why should we not do all these things? Simply for this reason: that it is in contravention of republican institutions, and that its tendency is to overthrow and destroy liberty.

or

Lieutenant General, &c.-Mr. Skelton.

many considerations of this sort, inspire in him a sort of artificial courage, when true courage may

be absent.

But if I want to find a truly brave man, I will go-not to the battle-field, where there are so many witnesses, and where a man is sure to meet with the plaudits of a mighty nation-where his deeds are sure to meet the approbation of his fellow-citizens throughout the land;-I would go where I have seen men go, to the place where the "pestilence wasteth at noonday"-where contagious disease rages through families, and even throughout whole countries. Let a man go there, and let him, unobserved, save by the victim who falls in silence-struck down by the dread destroyer-let him expose his life there, day after day, and night after night, without any of his companions to stimulate his courage to bravery, and without the incentive of a hope of glory as a reward, and there you will find true bravery. There is a bravery which is not artificial-which is not excited by the shouts of the multitude, but prompted by the inward workings of a courageous heartand by the feelings of humanity. But, sir, do such men receive the titles, honors, and distinctions of our country? No, sir, I have seen such men go down to their grave in neglect and want; their bravery and usefulnesss forgotten, save by those who have shared in the benefits of their kind offices.

It is these considerations which make me object to this principle of making military glory the only passport to position in society. There are other positions where men manifest their bravery. Look at the poor mechanic, who supports his family, depending upon him for subsistence, toiling on, day after day, and night after night, draining his very heart's blood for the purpose of supporting those by whom he is surrounded-refusing and rejecting the temptations to dishonesty to satisfy the wants of his starving children. There, there, sir, is true bravery. I have seen the me

These pensions and titles, in my opinion, are destructive of the liberties of any nation. They have, it is true, to a certain extent, been granted by this Government. We are now in the early history of this Government, but we are nevertheless tending to the same path which has been traveled by the monarchies of Europe. Look at the pensioned nobility of those countries. Look at the pension lists that are now loading down the productive energies of the great mass of the laborers of Europe. Look at the people of the French nation especially-worshiping military glory and casting their liberties from them-throwing their republican form of government from them, merely for the sake of having a nephew of their great military lord reign over them. And are we not tending in the same way? Are these propositions not of the same stamp? May they not be placed in the same political category? We are traveling in the same path, and I ask the American Congress to pause before they take another step in this downward course. What, sir, does any sensible man want with honorary titles-these empty baubles? Do they add anything to his fame as a hero, a statesman, or a patriot? Cannot the American people judge of a man by his merits without his titles? If they cannot, then titles are pernicious; and if they can, then they are useless, and should not be conferred. We are too apt to be dazzled with the blaze of military glory. There is something attractive in the fact of a man going on to the battle-field, and exposing himself to the deadly shot of the cannon and musket; there is something terrific in the thought of a man meeting man with the steel, in deadly conflict, to shed each other's blood. It is a manifestation of bravery and daring which attracts and dazzles; but look at it-look at it stript of the charm which is thus thrown around it, and what do you see? Is the military the only field where bravery may be manifested? Is that the only place where true courage can be displayed? No, sir; the martial music, the shouts of triumph, and the approbation of the country which always follow a successful campaign, stimulate a man on to the battle-field. The disapprobation of his comrades, when he shrinks from fighting bravely, and

myself, "You are sinking prematurely to your graves." "No matter," was the reply, the only question which presents itself is, Shall I sacrifice my life to educate and support my family, or shall I dastardly shrink from a duty which is by nature imposed upon me?" and I have seen

them sink.

Now, what do you propose to do? To overlook all the merits of all the civilians, laborers, and statesmen-to overlook all these, and all others, and to recognize only one class of persons in the American nation, as deserving the honors and distinctions to be bestowed by the American people; and that one class-the soldiery. What would you think of Benjamin Franklin, or George Washington, appearing before the American Congress, and asking for a title? What would you think of it? What did you think of Washington, when the title of King was offered him by the American Army? And what did he say upon that occasion? He spoke like a true and honest man. He spoke like a sensible man and true republican. "No, sir," said he; " you purchased your liberties by a contest of seven years, the most frightful that ever man went through. You have now attained your liberties, and you are about to do-what? You are about to destroy them for the purpose of conferring upon me the title of King Washington." He knew full well that the simple title of George Washington would descend down through the historic pages of time, and be more honored, more venerated, and more elevated than any emperor, king, or monarch, on whom the sun has ever shone. It is his. It is his alone. It belongs to America. It belongs to the Father of his Country. The titles of emperor, king, and monarch, have been conferred upon thousands, but that title which signifies so much in that great man is simply George Washington.

Now, will General Scott be satisfied with the title of Winfield Scott? Has he ennobled that name? Has he elevated the title of Winfield Scott to a position in the history of his country, that will be significant of deeds of daring and bravery? Then he should be satisfied with the name of Winfield Scott. It is his alone, and cannot be asserted by any other man after him, nor can it be asserted by any man who has preceded him. Why, sir, when we propose to confer this title upon George

Ho. OF REPS.

Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and a host of others, it shows up the whole thing in its naked deformity, and becomes too ridiculous to be discussed by the American Congress. If it had not been that the proposition has not been really entertained, and has been really asked-and when I say it, I feel my cheek tingle with shame-has been voted by the American Senate-I could not have believed that that august body would have stooped to such consummate folly as to confer an empty title upon a military hero. Let those who aspire to distinctions and honors endeavor to merit them, and let them be satisfied with the praise which will ever be conferred by a grateful American people.

So much, then, for the first part of my subject, which I proposed to discuss at the commencement of this rambling discourse.

Following upon the heels of this proposition comes another of similar import, marking out the future course of our country in regard to those matters of war. It is one which more eminently than the one I have just noticed, marks the downward tendency of this Government. It is to select from the Army and Navy a number of officers to be pensioned by the Government during the remainder of their lives, out of the hard earnings of the American people. Look at the proposition. There it stands. A petty aristocracy, set apart from the great mass of the American people to consume the hard earnings of the laborious multitude. Will the people of the country ever tol erate such a proposition? I admit that there is one merit in this proposition, and only one that I can see. But I think I can propose a remedy for the evil which would be far better than that provided in this proposition. It has been, I believe, universally admitted upon the floor of this House and upon the floor of the Senate, that we have a large number of American officers now in the Army and Navy who are entirely useless in service and absolutely an incumbrance to the officers in the Army. I say this has been universally admitted. It is notorious to everybody that there are a large number of officers upon the retired list who are receiving their half pay, in order to be ready to go forth to command the soldiers in our Army if the exigencies of the country should ever require it. But these men, as I said before, are unfit for command; many of them made so by their indolent habits; many by their habits of licentiousness, and many by their habits of drunkenness. They are neither fit to command in the Army, nor are they fit to command a national vessel upon the high seas.

Now I admit that some proposition should be brought forward by which the American people should be rid of these officers-these burdens upon them-those festering sores upon the Army, for all purposes of national defense. But shall we pension men who have disqualified themselves for the discharge of their duties? Shall we retain them in the public service for their lifetime, because they have made themselves drunkards, and thereby rendered themselves unfit for the discharge of their duties?

Why, sir, what do we do in the other portions of our public service? Do we employ men here upon the extension of this Capitol at seventy-five cents a day, and when the appropriations run out, place them upon half pay, in order to keep them for whatever may spring up? You have refused to make an appropriation to keep them at work, much less to give them half pay. Why is this? Is it because the sympathies-and I say it with regret of the American Congress are in favor of the officers and grandees of the nation, and not in favor of the working classes? We have not been able to wake up a single spark of sympathy for the poor toiling laborer, who gets not one half enough to supply his natural wants when employed.

Why, the men who draw out from the Treasury thousands upon thousands annually, when they become disabled, and unfit, from drunkenness and licentiousness, to discharge their public duties, what then? Why, provide a retired list, and set themselves up as an aristocratic class over the heads of the laboring mass of the American nation. Out upon such democracy! Out upon such republicanism! If this is to be the future path of our nation; if this is to be the future policy of our

32D CONG.....2d Sess.

country, I proclaim here to-day, that the choice between republicanism and monarchy is not worth the choosing. If we are to be cursed by an idle, licentious nobility, and robbed for the purpose of fitting them for that position, it will be no better for the American nation than if we had a king to rule over us.

It is for this reason that I have considered it my duty, when these measures are presented to the American Congress, to express not only to that Congress, but to the nation, and particularly to the district which I wish to represent honestly, what is going on in the American Congress, and what I believe will be the effect of this disastrous and criminal course of procedure. Why, sir, I know something about them, because I have the honor of appointing a gentleman to a seat in the Military Academy at West Point, and I happen to know that a great many of the people of my district were anxious to get their sons into that establishment, and consider it a very great favor to get a son educated at the national expense, who, when he graduates, comes out an officer.

But, sir, I took one from the mechanic's bench, and placed him in that institution, and I hope he will reflect honor and credit upon himself and his country some day or other. But when he comes out, he will receive better pay than he could have realized as a mechanic. He will be able to lay by more money than he would be able to do, were he to continue a mechanic, and yet not be compelled to work half as hard. And in addition to that, sir, he is placed in a higher circle of society, by the false notions-which I regret to say, prevail in this American Republic-that an officer is more respectable than a mechanic. I say by the false notions of society he is placed in a higher social circle, and paid better wages; and then, sir, if he disqualifies himself by drunkenness or idleness or any other means, for performing the duties assigned to him by the nation, shall we place him, after educating him, after having paid him well for his services, after he has squandered his income, which ought to have given him a competency in his old age,-shall we then pension him upon the American people, in a class of noblemen, educated for the American Army? No, sir. Out upon such republicanism! Out upon such injustice! It is downright robbery of the American people, to speak in plain English.

But, sir, are these the men we are to depend upon for the defense of our liberties? Are these the men that are to defend our territory from foreign invasion? No, sir, these are not the men. Suppose to-morrow war is declared by any foreign Power, and where will the United States Government look for the defenders of our liberties and honor? Why, sir, they will look to the farmers and to the mechanics' workshops. They will look to those classes of American citizens, and those will be the men who will be compelled to fight our battles, and defend our liberties; and allow me to say, sir, that these are the only classes of men upon whom we can rely on such occasions.

What are standing armies? What is this military nobility? Look at the history of the world. They have always been ready to sell their country's liberties to the highest bidder; but not so with the great mass of the American people, who all have a common stock in that liberty. We all fight for ourselves when we fight for our country, and we will refuse to sell our country's liberty, because we sell our own therewith. But not so with the professional soldier.

Sir, the policy I would pursue, and have the Government pursue, would be to detract from no man's real merits. Reward merit wherever you find it. Judge a man by his deeds and leave empty titles to kings, fools, and knaves, and not insult a free independent nation like this by conferring these empty symbols upon the American people.

Our Government was established for the advancement, the prosperity, and the happiness of the people. It was not established for the benefit of a ruling military dynasty, nor for a military nobility, nor do we want to convert our happy Republic into a military Republic, to cut the throats of our neighbors, and to destroy the liberties of our own citizens.

Sir, when we turn our eyes from the true path of prosperity for our country, we become derelict

Lieutenant General, &c.—Mr. Skelton.

to our duties as American statesmen. We should promote intelligence, virtue, industry, honesty, integrity, and all the virtues which tend to ennoble a people. We should develop the industrial resources of our country by wise and judicious legislation. We should maintain peace with all the nations of the earth, as far as can be done compatibly with the honor and interest of the American nation. But when, at any time, our rights and liberties shall be invaded by a foreign or domestic foe, we should then be ready as one man, and an united nation, to hurl the tyrant, who would invade our liberties, from this continent.

I am no soldier; I admit: but let any foe plant his foot upon our soil, and I guaranty to this House, that every man would shoulder his musket for the purpose of defending his home, his fireside, his children, and to protect the honor of his glorious ancestors.

If you want a proposition for strengthening and improving the military arm of our country, I would propose that we reward merit by throwing open the ranks of promotion to the common soldier. If you want to stimulate men to deeds of bravery, whenever you find a brave man upon the decks of your vessels-of-war, let him be promoted; let him be advanced to position. Sir, this proposition would give greater power and energy to the American Army, and to the American Navy, than ten thousand lieutenant generals to domineer over the great mass of the soldiers that fight our battles. How did Napoleon Bonaparte acquire his distinction, and his mighty power, as a military hero? Why, he rewarded merit. Monarch and Emperor as he was, when he found a brave and worthy private man in the ranks of the Army, or the Navy, he immediately selected that man for promotion, and advanced him, step by step, as far as his merits would warrant his promotion. But when a man degraded himself by cowardice, or drunkenness, or vice of any kind, then Napoleon cashiered the

man.

But, sir, what stimulus is there to the soldier, the marine, or the sailor, on board your national ships, to fight the battles of the country? He may fight as bravely as Julius Cæsar, or any other brave man, and he is a sailor and marine still. He never can have his shoulder braced by a gold epaulet, or his cap by the towering feather that crown some of our distinguished men at the present day. Never, never. His country closes its ears to the demands of his merits. But if he enters as a midshipman-a more respectable position, according to the silly false notions of societythen the rank of promotion is open to him, and he is sure of promotion; and according to the proposition pending in the Senate, he is sure of pay for life, be he ever so degraded, or mean, or vile.

There is another proposition, Mr. Chairman, which I shall be obliged to glance at very briefly, as I do not wish to occupy the attention of the House in an unnecessary debate.

HO. OF REPS.

Though he was poorly clad, though he made no professions, though he had no title, nor towering feather in his cap, nor shining epaulet upon his shoulder, the King, seeing that there was merit there, immediately selected him as one of his Prime Ministers, and placed him in an elevated position, in order to retain his services. And, sir, at this day the humble name of Rumford, who went from one of the eastern cities to Europe, and afterwards became a count, is more honored throughout the world by the glorious achievements of his superior intellect than all the titles which could ever be conferred upon him would make it. Such men's names are passports everywhere. Commanding intellect, intelligence, and virtue will command respect everywhere; and I would say to those of the American people in humble positions, to the American mechanic, who is looked down upon with contempt by his more lofty neighbors, Stand erect as men, and if you discharge your social duties with fidelity and integrity, you equal as a man the best in the nation who may glitter in gold and purple, and roll in a lordly carriage. I do not want to be understood as disposed to the founding of artificial distinctions in society, and arraying one class against another; but I do wish that the industrious, virtuous, and intelligent shall be elevated to positions of respectability and authority, where their merits demand they should stand. But shall we increase the salaries of our foreign ministers, that they may ape the fooleries of foreign courts? Do you not see the consum mate folly of such an attempt? Can you find intelligent-really intelligent men capable of competing with Emperors and Kings in displays of jewelry and fine linen, and costly banquets? Can we expect it? No, sir; double their salaries, if you please, and you will still find your ministers misrepresenting the people of this nation, and commanding no more respect than they did before.

Look at Franklin at the Court of France. I recollect an anecdote of him which, though old and heard by all, is still worthy of repetition, because it illustrates the point. A gentleman of an aristocratic cloth passing alongside of him, observed to a lady who accompanied him, "There is the American Minister!" "What!" says she, "that shabby-looking old gentleman?" "Yes, madam; and be careful how you speak of him, for he governs the thunder and lightning, and may strike you.'

Mr. CARTTER.

Good!

Mr. SKELTON. Benjamin Franklin at the Court of France, clad in his humble garments, gave no feasts to make himself and associates drunk. That man moving in his humble sphere, representing, as he did, an humble nation, has never been equaled by any foreign minister since, and he never will be until you select the best minds to represent us at European courts. Do this, and leave the vain display of glittering jewelry and gaudy dress to kings and fools. Be it our ambition to excel in virtue and intelligence; and when they talk about the degradation of an American nation being represented by an humble citizen, what will be said? Look across the broad Atlantic to that happy land, at its commercial marine, its manufactures, its intelligence, and enter

Our prosperity, under the influence of these plain, unassuming republican principles, has been unparalleled in the history of the world. Aristocrats may sneer and laugh at our simplicity and our plainness as much as they please, we will point them to our nation wherever we go with just pride and say, Ridicule, if you please, but you shall feel our power if you insult us as a nation. The time will soon come, if we are true to our instincts, true to our principles and our republican institutions, when we may dictate terms to the world.

We

Look at the rapid growth of our nation. number 24,000,000, though not three hundred years old. In fifty years, if we increase in the ratio, that we have heretofore, our sons will see this mighty nation spreading from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean, from the frozen shores of the North to the Isthmus at the South. And this mighty Republic will be inhabited, by what? Not by a military republican people, not by an aristocracy, not by an indolent, proud, licentious people, but by an industrious, intelligent, virtuous and prosperous nation, who will be able to dic

tate terms to the nations of the world on any subject. That prospect makes my heart glow. That prospect, when compared with the proposition to clothe with purple and fine linen our representatives at foreign courts to misrepresent the simplicity of our republican institutions, makes it dwindle into insignificance, and as scarcely worth a reflection of ridicule. What is the principle upon which our Government is based? It is the principle incorporated in our glorious Constitution and in our glorious religion: the principle that he who would be chief must serve; that he who would be the ruler must be the servant of the people. And shall we clothe our servants finer than we clothe ourselves? Shall they fare more sumptuously than their masters? Shall the subject be above the monarch, because in this country we are all monarchs, and not speaking boastfully either? Power emanates from the people, and rules are established for their benefit. That proposition no one will dispute. Let us have an eye single to that point. Let the rulers bear in mind that they are servants of the people; and I would ask Congress to remember that all of us are only the servants of the people to carry out their will, and to promote their interest and advance their institutions.

Why, sir, the whole history of the world shows that the human race, from its creation to the present time, has lost sight of man as man in his true dignity, and fallen down and worshipped idols. At the present day, we are man-worshippers as well as golden-calf-worshippers. And I think the time has arrived when man should arise in his true dignity, assert and maintain his rank as man everywhere. We have a mission, Mr. Chairman, and that mission is to raise up the downtrodden throughout the world, to spread civil and religious liberty everywhere. I say that this is our true mission. We should keep it in view, and the time will rapidly roll round-more rapidly than we can scarcely imagine-when, under the benign influence of our institutions, an impulse will be given to the human mind which has been unparalleled in the history of the world. Our progress within the last forty years has been greater than all of the nations of the earth put together for six thousand years. Our free institutions, and the elevation to the true standard has given an impulse to the human mind that will spread as the lightning's flash, and we are destined, if we are true to our mission, to extend this impulse throughout the globe. If we are true to our mission we will arise as the morning sun in its glory, and emperors, kings, and nobles, shall sink into insignificance on the page of history, and be looked upon as follies that bewildered and estranged the human intellect from its true path. May God in his mercy and wisdom direct and preserve this Government and people to the accomplishment of our true and glorious mission.

FRAUDS ON THE TREASURY-GARDINER CLAIM.

SPEECH OF HON. A. JOHNSON, OF TENNESSEE,.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

January 12, 1853,

should be made legally wrong. The object of this bill is to prohibit what is considered in one sense political wrong, and to carry out what is morally right.

The second section of the bill proposes, upon the conviction of any individual connected with the heads of the Departments, or of any functionary of the Government, in any of the courts of justice, of aiding or prosecuting any claim against the Government, for a fee direct or remote, or for an amount specified or an amount contingent, it shall be made a misdemeanor, indictable and punishable by fine and imprisonment, as the court shall direct. This was considered by the committeeand I think it is considered by the people of the country generally-as a moral and political wrong. The third section of the bill provides that if any member of either House of Congress, or any officer in the employ of either House of Congress, shall be guilty of prosecuting any claim against the Government, for a fee, remote, direct, or contingent, it shall be a misdemeanor, indictable and, upon conviction thereof, punishable with fine or imprisonment in the discretion of the court. I think it will be conceded that the practice ought to be prohibited; that it ought to be stopped. We see Congress besieged every session, and we see the Departments continually granting claims against the Government, and we know the appliances that are brought to bear to procure the settlement of the claims before the Departments, or their passage by the Congress of the United States. It seems to me that the position or character of a Representative in Congress is a very different one from being an agent to prosecute claims against the Government.

In the first instance, the Government can pay no claim unless there is an appropriation made; and if a member of Congress accepts a fee or a present, I care not upon what principle, he becomes involved in a position inconsistent with his public relations. He may say that he, as a lawyer, has a right to practice before courts of the United States, and aid in getting claims through such tribunals. But is that position consistent with the duty of a Representative? The people send a Representative here for the purpose of guarding their interests, and at the same time doing justice to all those who may have claims against the people through the Government. The people send Representatives and Senators here as guardians of the Treasury, and the holders of the pursestrings, to make such appropriations as are just, and to withhold all that are unjust.

Now, while a Representative is acting in his character as such, while he is standing as a sentinel upon the watchtowers over the people's interests, while he is protecting the Treasury, can he change his character and divest himself of all interest and become an agent for prosecuting claims against the Government which cannot be paid unless he, acting in the character of a Representative, appropriates money for such payment? We find that interest and prejudice are so closely blended, that they cannot be separated in matters of this sort. And when a member of Congress is acting in his capacity as such, he should not run the risk of being swerved from his duty as a Representative, by becoming an agent for the prosecution of claims against the

the United States.

Mr. JOHNSON said:

stance, we agree to pay a certain amount of money, by treaty stipulation with some other Government, or even with an Indian tribe. It is ratified by the Senate, for the Senate is a part of the treaty making power, and here, for instance, a member of Congress may be interested in a claim which a tribe of Indians or a foreign Power may have against the Government of the United States. The

tain amounts of money, upon certain conditions; it is submitted to the Senate of the United States for its ratification. And here we may find a man, who is acting as an agent for claimants against the Government, acting at the same time upon a treaty, providing for the payment of a large sum of money for the satisfaction of those claims. For instance, you may establish a board of commissioners-as I intend to give a case only for illustration-by which the amount set apart in the treaty may be awarded to particular individ

uals. Now, in the character of Senators, they may come before the board, and there act, as they

HO. OF REPS.

say, in a judicial capacity. They ratify the treaty, establish a board of commissioners to whom is confided the duty of awarding millions of dollars-which is intrusted to them-among those who have claims against the Government, and, immediately after the ratification of the treaty, step out before this board of commissioners created by that same treaty, and prosecute against the Government claims which you have provided for in the very treaty they have ratified.

Now, how do you find the practical operation of this thing? Notwithstanding you provide by treaty for the payment of money, there is another power to be exercised before the money can be paid. After having prosecuted the claims to award before the commissioners, the money must be appropriated by the appropriating power, before it can be paid over to the parties to which it is awarded. Then we immediately see the impropriety of members of Congress acting as agents, as their duties as Senators and Representatives come in direct conflict with the duties of a claims agent. They cannot protect the interests of the people in their capacity of Representatives, and at the same time prosecute a claim against this Government. It is a conflict of interest and duty which cannot be reconciled. I know it may be said that we can step out of the House of Representatives, before a board of commissioners, and divest ourselves of all interest in the first character. Can we return from the successful prosecution of claims before that board, to a vote in the Senate, and say we are disinterested?

This whole matter is morally wrong and politically wrong, and it ought to be made legally wrong, and should be punished as contemplated in this bill. It seems to me that it is improper for a member of Congress to form any such connection with claims of this sort. Such a connection is improper, because it is immoral, because it is unsound in politics; and if it is unsound in these two points, it ought to be made so legally.

But, Mr. Speaker, I am going along with this question. There seems to be some two or three other questions connected with it. My intention is, in the main, to discuss the bill and the propriety of its passage; but in this discussion there has sprung up a question not altogether legitimate, and I claim the privilege, which others have indulged in, of diverging from the true line of de

bate.

When we come to examine this Gardiner claim, which is the root out of which this bill has sprung through this special committee, we find the basis of this claim rests upon the twenty-sixth article of the treaty made in 1831. That treaty provided for and secured certain rights and privileges to our citizens in Mexico. Three of those privileges were, that where our citizens lived upon the coast or in towns, in the event that a war should break out, they should have six months' notice to leave the country and take away their effects. If they lived in the interior, pursuing the business of merchandise, they were to have twelve months. If they lived in the interior or other portions of the country, pursuing any other occupation, so long as they behaved themselves and acted in subordination to the existing authorities, they were permitted to remain and be protected in the enjoyment of their lives, their liberty, and their property.

Under this article of the treaty of 1831, many claims sprung up on the part of the citizens of the United States against the Government of Mexico. They increased. Depredations were committed of various kinds-spoliations, if you think proper to call them so-and claims, in behalf of citizens, accumulated to a very considerable amount.

In 1839, there was formed another treaty with Mexico, which treaty provided for the establishment of a Board of Commissioners to sit upon, and adjudicate the claims of citizens of the United States against the Government of Mexico. That Board was a mixed one. A part of it was created by the United States, and a part by Mexico; and the claims which they might award, were to be paid upon certain conditions. In relation to the claims which could not be agreed upon, there was an umpire to be selected who was to determine upon their validity.

We find that the Board established by the treaty of 1839 resulted in a failure. There were some awards made, it is true, but in many cases there