32D CONG....2D SESS.

"Some time in the fall of 1849, or early in 1850, Dr. Gardiner called at my room and told me that he had been advised to employ Major Lally in this case. I protested strongly against it, and said it would be an act of great injustice to me to do so-to employ him or anybody else without I knew nothing of Major Lally or his characmy consent. ter which would justify any imputation on that account, but I knew that such imputations would be made, as he was nearly connected with one of the commissioners, and, as I had been informed, was not a lawyer; and that he, Gardiner, had certainly counsel enough."

Gardiner, Mr. Speaker, most undoubtedly employed all these men, and gave them most enormous fees, that he might have the influence, not only of their political, but also of their personal position, in aid of his doubtful and fraudulent claim.

The charge against Mr. Corwin was, and is, that he sold his political position, being United States Senator, and his great personal influence with the Whig commissioners, in aid of a claim, fraudulent in itself, and sustained by perjured testimony.

I am aware, sir, that my colleague, [Mr. CAMPBELL,] in a speech delivered by him in this House in August last, by the quotation of a single paragraph from a speech of mine, made in July previous, not upon this subject, but upon the state of political parties, attempted to make me the accuser of Mr. Corwin, as being a party in the forgery and perjury committed in this case. In reply to my colleague on this precise point, I took particular pains to be correctly understood, and consequently put my exact meaning into the form of specific charges. They may be found on page 2303 of the 3d part of the 24th volume of the Congressional Globe. They are as follows:

First. "That Mr. Corwin, while acting as Senator, and receiving eight dollars per day for watching and guarding the National Treasury, took a contingent fee, said to amount to $100,000, for the prosecution of a claim against that Treasury."

This specification, excepting so much as fixes the amount of Corwin's fee, is fully sustained by the committee, who say "that in May the Hon. 'Thomas Corwin, then a member of the United 'States Senate, was employed as counsel in the 'Gardiner claim by General Waddy Thompson."

Second. "That when about to become the head of the Treasury Department, he sold his contingent fee to a citizen of New York for a large amount, said to be $79,000, and that said claim, amounting to nearly half a million of dollars, was paid upon the draft or warrant of Mr. Corwin."

The finding of the committee upon this specification has already been stated. It is, that "the 'Hon. Thomas Corwin resigned his seat in the 'Senate, and accepted the appointment of Secre'tary of the Treasury, in the month of July, 1850. In the same month, and previous to his going into the Cabinet of President Fillmore as Secretary of the Treasury, a sale of his fee interest in, and also of his half of the one fourth part of 'the Gardiner claim, was negotiated through the 'intervention of Governor John Young, of New 'York, to George Law, Esq., of New York;" and further, that "the money for the sale, $80,357, 'was received by Thomas Corwin, and on the 23d of November, was deposited by him to his 'credit with Messrs. Corcoran & Riggs.'

Third. "That Thomas Corwin and Robert G. Corwin, his nephew, through Mr. Corcoran, purchased the one fourth interest of this claim for the sum of $15,000. That with this $15,000 Dr. Gardiner twice visited Mexico in the preparation of his papers and evidence, to be presented to the Bourd of Commissioners."

I have already shown, from the report of the committee, that Thomas Corwin and Robert G. Corwin purchased the one fourth of the Gardiner claim for a sum of over $22,000 instead of $15,000. The report of the committee also shows that after receiving this money, Dr. Gardiner proceeded to Mexico to complete his testimony. But to substantiate fully the charge that with this money Dr. Gardiner proceeded to Mexico with the instructions of General Thompson and Thomas Corwin in his pocket, allow me to refer again to Robert G. Corwin's Lebanon speech, in which, in speaking of the necessity of procuring additional testimony from Mexico, he says:

"Dr. Gardiner was now in an embarrassed condition. The destruction of his property in a foreign country had left him almost destitute. As one of the consequences, he had left the country largely in debt, and deemed it unsafe to return in his present condition His old friend Perez Galvez was dead, and he had no powerful friends in Mexico on whom he could rely. He had no money for so expensive a journey. In this dilemina, General Thompson and myself

The Gardiner Claim-Mr. Olds.

both endeavored to negotiate a loan for him, and failed. We also failed in our efforts to sell a share of the claim. Capitalists were afraid to invest, because, as they remarked, the commissioners had yet several months to sit, and in the mean time it might occur that Gardiner's claim lacked support, and the board had the power to revoke all it had done in his regard. At this time Dr. Gardiner came to me and insisted that I should purchase a share of his claim. At first averse to the proposal, my objections were gradually overcome, and I purchased one fourth of Dr. Gardiner's claim for the sum of over $40,000. This being a larger amount than I could command, and one half being a cashi payment, I raised the money by getting my friends in Wasbington and Ohio to indorse my paper. Among others, I asked Thomas Corwin, and you know Corwin signs everybody's note.

"After this I proposed to Mr. Corwin that as we had been associated as lawyers in the case, and heretofore in business, he should join me in my purchase of an interest in the Gardiner claim. He did so after weighing the matter in his own mind, and finding no valid objection to such a course. This was in March, 1850."

Ho. OF REPS.

and made the specifications as I have made them. And yet, sir, the gentleman from New York would call this an honorable acquittal of Mr. Corwin, and " turning back upon me the odium by my own party.'

Mr. Speaker, I will not say that at the time I offered the resolution calling for this committee of investigation, that I had not a settled conviction upon my mind, that Corwin must have known, or at least have strongly suspected, the fraudulent character of this claim. That conviction has not been changed, but greatly confirmed, by the evidence reported by the committee. But, sir, notwithstanding these convictions, I had no purpose of making any such charge in the resolution, knowing the utter impossibility of proving a man's thoughts or impressions. Nothing in the language of the resolution, or in the remarks with which I

"I purchased the one-fourth of his claim. His reason for selling it was to raise money to go to Mexico and get this additional proof."

There is not a remaining doubt, then, but that, as charged, this sale was made in consequence of Gardiner's necessity to have money to visit Mexico. And the fact is equally as well established, that, with this money, he actually visited Mexico, with the instructions of Corwin and Thompson in his pocket, and that he returned with his forged testimony.

Fourth. "That Dr. Gardiner's claim was founded upon his right to a silver mine in Mexico, from which he alleges he was expelled by the Mexicans."

The committee say:

"The claim of George A. Gardiner was a claim for damages alleged to have been sustained by him, by reason of his expulsion, on the 24th day of October, 1846, by the Mexican authorities, from mines which he alleged he was extensively engaged in working in the State of San Luis Potosi, in Mexico."

Fifth. "That no such silver mine as the one claimed by Dr. Gardiner, ever existed."

Upon this specification, the committee say: "Upon examination of the evidence taken by them, it appears from the testimony of José Antonio Barragan, that he is well acquainted with the place in the department of Rio Verde, State of San Luis Potosi, in Mexico, where Gardiner's evidence locates his mine; that there are silver mines in the State of San Luis Potosi, but that there is none at that place, or in the department of Rio Verde." Again, the committee say:

"Two witnesses, John Baptiste Barragan and Pantaleon Galvan, testify to the forgery of the documentary evidence of Gardiner; and both testify that they are acquainted with the locality of Laguinillas, in the State of San Luis Potosi, and that there is no silver mine there. These three witnesses are Mexicans, residing in the vicinity where Dr. Gardiner's testimony locates his mine; they are all gentlemen of character and respectability in their own country. The first named, Jose Antonio Barragan, held, from 1843 to 1846, the office of collector of the customs at Rio Verde. Laguinillas belongs to this district. He now holds the office of comptroller general of the State of San Luis Potosi. They all came to the United States as witnesses, under an arrangement made by George W. Slacum, Esq., an agent of the United States Government, who went by direction of Hon. R. P. Letcher, the American Minister in Mexico, to the State and city of San Luis Potosi, for the purpose of investigating the character of the claim of George A Gardiner, and the Mears claim, and obtaining testimony in relation to them."

The Sixth and last charge. "That the evidence upon which the Mexican claims commissioners awarded nearly half a million of dollars to Gardiner, Corwin & Co., was a forgery from beginning to end.”

I have already shown from the finding of the committee, that "John Baptiste Barragan and Pantaleon Galvan, gentlemen of character and respectability, testify to the forgery of the documentary evidence of Dr. Gardiner."

The committee add:

"From the evidence before the committee, (the above being only a summary of the more important facts testified to by the witnesses,) the committee are constrained to believe, upon the first branch of the investigation committed to them, that the claim of George A. Gardiner, upon which an award was made by the Board of Commissioners for the sum of $428,750, was sustained before the commissioners by false testimony and forged papers, and is a naked fraud upon the Treasury of the United States."

These charges, Mr. Speaker, let it be recollect

such a charge. Upon this precise point, sir, in commenting upon my colleague's account of Corwin's connection with this transaction, in which I supposed he had involved himself in seeming contradictions, I used the following language:

"What, sir, is to be the interpretation of these contradictory statements? I fear me, sir, that my colleague himself will convict Mr. Corwin of being a party to this fraud. I fear me, sir, (that from my colleague's own showing,) this case is likely to be far more serious upon Mr. Corwin than his worst enemies had apprehended."

This language does not look as though I desired, at that time, making Corwin a party to the fraud. I repeat, sir, no matter what might have been my settled convictions, this language shows that I designed making no such charge. It shows, sir, that I designed imposing no such inquiry upon the committee. Yet, sir, because the committee inserted in their report, a paragraph simply stating the fact that "no testimony has been ad'duced before the committee proving, or tending that the Hon. Thomas Corwin had any to prove, 'knowledge that the claim of the said Gardiner 'was fraudulent, or that false testimony or forged 'papers had been, or were to be, procured to sus'tain the same,' "I am to be told that the committee have acquitted Mr. Corwin of the actual charges, "and turned back upon me the odium." Why, sir, I never for a moment supposed that the cunning, sagacious Corwin, had so committed himself, as that his knowledge of the fraud would be proved. He would have been a fool, indeed, had he not well covered up his tracks; and notwithstanding he was surrounded by his friends and accomplices, kept his own secrets closely locked up in his own bosom. But, sir, apply to Mr. Corwin a principle universal in your courts of judicature, "that a man's inward intentions shall be judged by his outward acts," and then tell me if you can, sir, that Corwin has established his honest intentions, and vindicated his innocence.

But, sir, the committee do not undertake to say that Corwin had no such knowledge. They merely assert a fact, viz: that no such evidence was adduced before the committee. Upon the contrary, the inference to be drawn from the declaration and the action of the committee is, that they did infer that Corwin must have had suspicions, amounting almost to a certainty, that the whole case was a fraud. For it must be admitted upon all hands that the commissioners who allowed the claim had no better information as to the character of the claim than had Mr. Corwin, the confidential counsel and agent of Mr. Gardiner.

It is not to be presumed that Mr. Corwin would have purchased one fourth of so large a claim without having as closely scrutinized its validity and honesty as did the commissioners. Neither is it to be presumed that if the case had been devoid of suspicion that the Messrs. Corwin could have purchased one fourth of $428,000 for the sum of $22,000.

The committee do not hesitate to censure the commissioners. Does not that censure apply

32D CONG....2D SESS.

Were not these circumstances and suspicions as well known to Corwin as they were to the commissioners? To suppose anything else, is to deny to him that sagacity which his friends so fully accord to him.

Mr. Speaker, the committee do not undertake to say that Corwin had no knowledge of the fraudulent character of this claim. They merely assert the fact that no such evidence was presented to the committee. But, sir, is it not fair to infer the opinion of the committee as to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Corwin from the recommendation made by the committee to the House? That committee, sir, had been appointed and instructed to investigate Corwin's connection with the Gardiner claim. And what is their finding? Why, that Corwin, whilst acting as Senator, had been connected with this claim as the agent or counsel of Gardiner; "the committee find, sir, that the Messrs. Corwin had a large fee interest in the claim; they find, sir, that Thomas Corwin and Robert G. Corwin had purchased the one fourth of this claim; they find that the claim was most fraudulent; and they find that it was sustained and allowed upon forged testimony. And what do they do, sir? Why, they report the facts to this House, and they accompany that report with a bill making the recurrence of just such transactions as Corwin had been guilty of a misdemeanor, and punishable with fine and imprisonment.

Mr. Speaker, every line, every word of that bill speaks trumpet-tongued the opinion of the committee as to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Corwin. The very caption of the bill has a significance in it not easily misunderstood. Listen to it:

"Mr. PRESTON KING, from the Select Committee appointed to investigate the connection of the Hon. Thomas Corwin with the Gardiner claim, reported the following bill."

A bill for what, sir? Why, "A bill to prevent frauds upon the Treasury of the United States." Does not this imply that a fraud had been committed upon that Treasury? And does it not connect Mr. Corwin with that fraud? Mr. Speaker, let me ask honorable gentlemen to listen to the reading of the bill, section by section, and then let them say if it is not a most fearful censure cast by the committee upon Mr. Corwin for his connection with the Gardiner claim:

Ho. OF REPS.

will it cause suits to be instituted against them, to recover back into the National Treasury their portion of this enormous plunder?

Be the action of Congress what it may, sir, I have discharged my duty, and am content to abide the result.

FOREIGN POLICY-CUBA.

Suppose, Mr. Speaker, that this bill had been passed into a law, prior to Mr. Corwin's connection with the Gardiner claim, what would have been the consequence? Would he not have been indicted under it? Would he not have been liable to its pains and penalties? Mr. Corwin is innocent then, only from the fact, that we have no law to punish just such a case as the committee make out against him. But the committee recommend the passage of a law making it a misdemeanor, and punishable with fine and imprisonment, to do precisely what Mr. Corwin has done. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that a stupendous fraud has been perpetrated against the Government. The National Treasury has been robbed of nearly $500,000. So barefaced has been the United States, or person holding any place of trust or profit, July, 1852, the United States instituted a chancery fraud, that the committee informs us "that in

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all transfers and assignments hereafter made of any claim upon the United States, or any part or share thereof, or interest therein, whether absolute or conditional, and whatever may be the consideration therefor; and all powers of attorney, orders, or other authorities, for receiving payment of any such claim, or any part or share thereof, shall be absolutely null and void, unless the same shall be freely made and executed in the presence of at least two attesting witnesses, after the allowance of such claim, the ascertainment of the amount due, and the issuing of a warrant for the payment thereof.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That any officer of the

or discharging any official function, under, or in connection with, any Executive Department of the Government of the United States, or under the Senate or House of Representatives of the United States, who, after the passage of this act, shall receive any gratuity from any claimant against the United States, or shall act as an agent or attorney for prosecuting any claim against the United States, or shall in any manner, or by any means otherwise than in the discharge of his proper official duties, aid or assist in the prosecution or support of any such claim or claims, shall be liable to indictment, as for a misdemeanor, in any court of the United States having jurisdiction for the trial of crimes and misdemeanors; and, on conviction, shall pay a fine not exceeding twice the amount of gratuity, fee, or compensation received by the person so convicted, or suffer imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding one year, or both, as the court, in its discretion, shall adjudge.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That any Senator or Representative in Congress who, after the passage of this act, shall receive any gratuity from any claimant against the United States, or shall, for compensation paid or to be paid, certain or contingent, act as agent or attorney for prosecuting any claim or claims against the United States, or shall in any manner or by any means, for such compensation, aid or assist in the prosecution or support of any such claim or claims, shall be liable to indictment, as for a misdemeanor, in any court of the United States having jurisdiction for the trial of crimes and misdemeanors; and, on conviction, shall pay a fine not exceeding twice the amount of the gratuity or compensation received by the person convicted, or suffer imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding one year, or both, as the court, in its discretion, shall adjudge.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the provisions of this act, and of the act of July twenty-ninth, eighteen hundred and forty six, entitled "An act in relation to the payment of claims," shall apply and extend to all claims against the United States, whether allowed by special acts of Congress or arising under general laws or treaties, or in any other manner whatever; and every offense against the provisions of this act shall be a misdemeanor.

suit in the circuit court of the District of Colum'bia, to enjoin in the hands of Corcoran & Riggs 'moneys and stocks belonging to G. A. Gardiner, to the amount of between $90,000 and $100,000; and also in the same month, in the circuit court of the southern district of New York, to enjoin in the hands of the New York Life Insurance and Trust Company moneys and stocks belonging to George A. Gardiner, to the amount of '$130,500.”

Gardiner, it seems, sir, is to be made to disgorge his portion of this fraudulent claim-Gardiner is subjected to a criminal prosecution-Gardiner, the humble citizen, in all probability will be convicted, and suffer the extreme penalty of the law. But, sir, what will be, or rather, what ought to be done with the other parties interested with this stupendous fraud?

The Messrs. Corwin and Waddy Thompson, no matter what might have been their original impressions about this claim, are now fully aware that it was a naked fraud upon the National Treasury. Will they come forward like honest men and refund their portion of the plunder? or will they tighten their grasp upon their ill-gotten gain?

The committee, sir, have reported a bill to prevent and punish the recurrence of such transactions. Will this Congress content itself with the passage of this bill? Or in case of the neglect or refusal of Thompson, Corwin & Co. to refund,

OF CALIFORNIA,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

January 6, 1853,

In the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, on the conduct of the present Administration in regard to Cuba, and our foreign policy generally.

Mr. MARSHALL said:

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I had not wished or intended to claim the attention of the committee to the remarks I propose to make to-day. I had intended, and still intend (unless the duty is discharged by some one who can bring before the House the authority of a greater name) to offer a resolution to this effect: That the Committee on Ways and Means be directed to report a bill placing at the disposal of the President of the United States the sum of five or ten millions of money in the Treasury, and not otherwise appropriated, to meet any exigencies which may arise before the meeting of the next Congress in our foreign relations. I wished to have presented some such resolution in the House, not only that it might give rise to discussion of matters of a practical and important bearing on the interests of the country, but that such discussion might be followed by some action on the part of this House which would have significance before the people. I had hoped, and still hope, that a vote of the House, giving unequivocal expression of opinion upon practical questions will be taken, and I entertain the fullest confidence that that vote will have the happiest effect at home and abroad. The expression here in committee of abstract opinions on questions which may never arise, and which certainly will only arise in the remote future, is no part of my purpose to-day.

There are affairs now pending in regard to which the action of the Executive, so far as any action has been had, has been, as I think, and as I shall endeavor to prove, ruinous to the interests and fatal to the honor of the nation. Fortunately, our foreign policy may yet be changed, or rather, a foreign policy may be established consistently with the faith of treaties and all our obligations, while the public interests are protected and the national honor redeemed. The resolution which I propose to introduce will announce to the incomthe popular vote in the late election has done on ing Administration our perfect confidence in it, as the part of the people themselves. It is offered not as a war measure, but simply implies that a change of policy is desired, and that the Executive will have the support, the earnest and effectual support of Congress. A vote of confidence of this character is not without precedent in our history; and it is also established firmly in the Government from which many of our usages and laws are derived. I shall urge this measure upon the Democratic party as a peace measure, and one which strikes me as the most important upon which we shall have to act, in its effects upon our national character and national interests. The subject of our foreign relations has been introduced by gentlemen in committee, and questions have been debated which, although not identical with those which I think render necessary the vote of confidence of which I have spoken, are yet cognate questions; and as the points to which I attach the greatest importance have been almost neglected and doctrines inculcated of the worst influence upon the State which I represent, in part, I have determined to give my own views of those questions at this time, although I think the subject would have come up with more propriety and effect upon a resolution before the House. I shall call the attention of the committee to the diplomacy of this Government in the Island of Hayti and the Republic of Nicaragua, because there we have incurred the deepest shame and sustained the greatest loss, and because these evils are not without easy remedy;

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

and for the further reason that the State which I represent in part has a special and local interest in the policy of the Government as regards the Gulf of Mexico, its islands and shores.

It is true, as a general principle, that in a Confederacy like ours, the more remote members are, and ought to be, more jealous of the honor, and m ore sensitive to every indication of weakness of the Union, than those nearer the political and geographical center. Civis sum Americanus is uttered with more pride on the shores of the Pacific than the Potomac.

We lean upon the General Government for support; and nowhere within the ample boundaries of the Union does there exist the same sentiment of confiding dependence that we feel. At the same time there are none of the States which have felt with such poignant shame the sacrifice of honor and principle, and the deep humiliation, brought on us as a people by the present Administration.

We believe, we know, that there is strength enough in the Government, under a manly and patriotic Administration, to protect all its parts in all their rights. The eagle's wing is strong enough to bear its flight over the continent, and its beak and talons sharp enough to guard its charge, even though the lion of England should array himself against it in his acknowledged power.

The interest so universally felt in the subject of inter-oceanic communication, and much of that felt in regard to the islands and shores of the Gulf of Mexico, has arisen since, and depends on the acquisition of California. Commercial necessity forces us to transmit, monthly, nearly three millions of specie through an independent republic, and under the very guns of fortresses which have only to hold us in the contempt we have merited to become hostile; and the inestimable rights of every kind of our citizens are exposed through the same causes, and to the same dangers. I feel obliged, therefore, even on occasions not peculiarly appropriate, even when the effort will not be productive of immediate action, to assert the doctrines I hold, and to expose the imbecility and corruption, from which even now we are suffering. The Island of Cuba, and the possibility and probability of its annexation to the Union, and the policy of the Administration toward the Government on which it is dependent, have produced much debate. The danger of collision between Spain and ourselves seems to me to have passed for the present, and, right or wrong, the questions between us are settled. I do not think that in good faith the next Administration can, or that it will, assert any claim or principle likely to renew the late difficulties, or to change materially our relations with Spain or Cuba. I cannot see that any immediate necessity exists for a change in our policy, or that any practical question is likely to arise. Neither the next Administration, nor the present generation, will be called on to act in regard to it, and I am willing to leave it to the wisdom and courage and patriotism of those who will, by the course of events, and in the fullness of time, have to meet it. I cannot but allude to one significant fact, of which I have seen no explanation, which goes to prove that the Administration is by no means confident of the propriety of its course in the most exciting and threatening of the Cuban difficulties. The American Consul in Havana, who had pursued precisely the course consistent with the expressed views and instructions of the Government, who carried out with a tameness and cowardice, which should have made him Secretary of State, the will of the Executive, was by that very Executive dismissed with dishonor, and given over to the execrations of the whole unanimous people, without one word of explanation or defense.

The gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. VENABLE,] who introduced this discussion, did not confine himself to an examination of the policy of the Administration in respect to Cuba, but went on to the assertion of general principles, which I was surprised to hear from him, and in which I by no means concur. That gentleman also indulged himself in a general reprobation of the doctrines of progress, and the plans of filibusters, and seemed to intimate a belief that some political party, or section of a party, were desirous of lawless conquest, and in favor of predatory incursions upon neighboring Powers, especially if those Pow

Foreign Policy-Cuba-Mr. Marshall.

ers were weaker than ourselves. Now, sir, let me say in behalf of Young America, and the progressives, with whose opinions I sympathize, that we desire to do no one thing which is not consistent with the sound principles of public law, and the rights of all our neighbors. That we do not desire war for conquest, or any purpose; that we regard it as the greatest evil, except dishonor. And further, that we advocate no measure of foreign policy which ought, or which we believe will, lead to war. We contend for no new doctrine; we merely insist upon the strict observance of principles well established by authority, and necessary for our own peace and safety. I shall, in another connection, state the doctrines to which I allude, while I now consider some of the leading propositions of the gentleman, [Mr. VENABLE,] which I believe constitute a faith common to the gentleman and the more conservative portion of the Whig party.

If I understood the gentleman, he was opposed to the annexation of Cuba at any time, and in any way, on the ground that the Union could not with safety embrace any additional territory. I will also state what I believe is the real operative reason of the objection of that gentleman. It is a conviction, now nearly universal, that the progress of slavery in American territory is arrested. That in all future acquisitions, from the operation of many active causes, the institution of slavery will not exist. It is clear that whatever the reason assigned, the ground of opposition to the acquisition of a country so manifestly advantageous to the South as Cuba would be, either as a free or slave State, is jealousy of the North.

Mr. Chairman, the time is past when the question of slavery in any territory about to be acquired, can produce the agitation and danger which has arisen from it. The principle is settled by the compromise, that the citizens of such territory, at the time, shall determine for themselves this question; and if the North should, by its greater energy and aptitude for emigration, acquire the popular power, and the right under the rule so settled by the compromise, to declare any territory seeking admission into the Union, free, the South could not, if it would, under the Constitution and laws, and would not if it could, resist a measure beneficial to the whole nation. The South should be satisfied with the guarantees of the Constitution and the laws, for their peculiar institution; and even if it be receding, if the conditions of human society, and the progress of free States militate against it; if with the protection thrown round it by the organic law of the land, it be yet in its own nature temporary and evanescent, and about to disappear before the democratic energies and the laws of political economy, there is neither the wisdom of a statesman, nor the generous patriotism of a good citizen, in seeking to impede the advance, and check the development of States where no such institution obtains.

case.

I believe myself, and I speak only for myself, that there will be no more slave territory annexed to the United States. The history of the country, and especially of California, establishes the fact, and illustrates the principle which governs the Look at California. If slavery could ever progress, it would have obtained there. Slavery is only advantageous to the slaveholder in countries where the largest amount of labor can be bestowed on the smallest surface, and where it pays the heaviest profit. Now, sir, since man first left the Garden of Eden, there has been no place discovered where these conditions are so wonderfully met, as in California-and yet I tell gentlemen that there never was a time when slavery could have been introduced there, nor is such a time coming. We approved the compromise; but the character of our State was fixed without it. Labor was imposed as a curse, (and it is awful in my private opinion,) and free citizens will not submit to have it made dishonorable, as well as disagreeable, by slave competition. Free men will be the first emigrants, and they have, and will protect their aristocracy of labor from the action of organized capital, in the shape of slavery.

But as regards the proposition now beginning to be urged in the most unexpected quarter, that any extension of territory is dangerous to the Union, I shall say only a few words. The directly opposite proposition would seem true upon its

HO. OF REPS.

mere statement-certainly everyaddition of territory, voluntarily connecting itself with an existing government, increases the physical force and resources of every kind, at the disposition of the constituted authorities of the whole.

It is true that a pure democracy can only exist within narrow territorial limits, and with a very small population, for the obvious reason that where the people assemble and pass laws directly, that only a very few can meet or act in concert. Our own observation and experience proves that such democracy should consist of fewer citizens than compose this House, if prompt and efficient legislation is the thing desired. But that difficulty, which is as old as the formation of society, was obviated by the system of responsible representatives of the people themselves. The other objection, that a legislature assembled from vast distances, could not wisely provide for the local wants of regions remote, and to the great majority of its component members, wholly unknown, has been met only conclusively in the history of the world by our own system, partly national and partly federal. The establishment of the doctrine of State rights, as a security for efficient local legislation, and a Federal Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary, for the arrangement of foreign relations and of domestic affairs, throwing its guardian arm over all, is perfect in theory and in practice. It appears to give the only absolute security against the prevalence of dangerous faction, by placing always, in the hands of the National Government, the force of more than half of the Confederacy; and against foreign invasion it is a self-evident security-and these internal factions and foreign wars exclude all the perils which can menace a nation. I confess that I can see only one limit to the safe extension of territory, and that is in a distance so great that the constituent citizens would be unable to hold the representative to the rigid responsibility which is the basis of the whole sys

tem.

Such a Government seems to me to grow stronger with each accession of territory, and like a wellconstructed arch, to acquire greater firmness from increased pressure and accumulated weight. But suppose the worst did happen, from the annexation of Cuba, or any other province-suppose the worst to have come--that the parts could no longer hold together, but must dissolve: what then? I say, still, that the experiment is worth trying, and that good would result even from the temporary union. We would have introduced new ideas; we would have taught the lesson of selfgovernment, of resistance to oppression, of freedom, of the equality of men in the eye of the law, of the dignity of the individual, without which teachings, man had better not be.

We would have made converts to the faith of human liberty, and given their true value to a nation; and whether we continued to exist in one Union, or broke into fifty free republics, the world would be improved by the diffusion of that knowledge, which alone makes life tolerable. The great Union so broken, would be like a fractured diamond, less valuable certainly in its fragmentary state, but still the same precious material, reflecting from each brilliant part the light of American civilization, intelligence, and liberty.

No one can have less sympathy than myself with the wild excesses into which doctrines liberal, but at the same time safe and prudent, have been sometimes carried. I would by no means defend the vagaries of Anacharsis Clootz, or such sects as he represented. I mean to be never the advocate of wild and self-sacrificing propagandism; but I prefer it much, in its worst form, to the extreme of conservatism-that conservatism which would, in terror and suspicion, withdraw from all foreign intercourse into Japanese solitude; that conservatism which, in dread of entangling alliances, would refuse to declare a principle of public law, or in the maintenance of strict neutrality neglect to defend its citizens, plundered by both belligerents; that conservatism which instructs the representatives of a great Republic to avoid in monarchical courts the expression of the sentiment of the country they represent, or the inculcation abroad of the free principles which alone give value to government; that conservatism which has already made our own diplomatic corps mere evidences of the power, mere trappings and circumstances to swell

the

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

Foreign Policy-Cuba-Mr. Marshall.

tion, not solely or principally with a view to pecuniary advantage, but a periodical which shall be the jealous guardian of the rights of the people and the honor of the nation; which shall speak with the boldness of conscious knowledge on all subjects of public importance. Upon this question of Hayti, the Republic copies the article of the Union as being perfectly in accordance with the views of the Administration. Did not the Union know, had its editor never heard, that the Democratic party, so far as it had expressed, by the press or otherwise, its opinions on this point, had visited, with the deepest reprobation, the course of the Administration?-but the article itself contains

"In general, the foreign policy of President Fillmore's administration has not been in accordance with our notion of what the foreign policy of this country should be, and we have been constrained in some instances to express an emphatic disapprobation of negotiations which seemed to us to compromise the dignity and to surrender the rights of the United States. For this reason, any instances of an energetic or wise administration of the foreign affairs of the country by an Executive whose general policy we have been constrained to condemn, will the more readily command our warmest commendation. Such an instance of wise diplomacy do we regard the efforts of this Government, in conjunction with Great Britain and France, to arrest the sanguinary designs of the negro Emperor of Hayti against the republic of Dominica.

pomp and flatter the insolence of those potentates to whom their very presence should be a solemn warning; that conservatism which dares not interpose in friendly mediation between its own neighbors, without calling in the crowned heads of Europe to destroy its influence, and laugh at its folly. Liberal opinions and bold policy may run into inconsiderate rashness; but prudent conservatism may also degenerate into cowardly imbecility. The notions of an hundred years past are not necessarily or generally suitable or safe at this date. The conservatism of the present day is a mere eddy in the rushing and resistless tide of human development and progress. The position of our continent, its mere geographical position, makes (what every one in the country knows, and nothimpossible the policy of conservatism. Placed being more) enough to convict itself of absurdity, tween the civilization of the Orientals, which the and the Executive of weakness and disregard of maturity of despotism has well-nigh destroyed, one of the fundamental principles of American and the nations of Europe still fresh and vigorous policy. It says: even under the curse of monarchical and aristocratic institutions, commercial necessity, like the attraction of gravitation, forces contact with both. Commerce must have its agents, must be protected. Representatives of the Government, with political character higher than the mere consul, and hedged round by the sacred jus postliminii, introduce the very atmosphere of the republic to the court of the monarch-opinions are diffused, sympathies are created, interests spring up, which may be affected by the terms of treaties to which we are not parties; wars and pacifications, transfers of territories by which our rights and privileges may be sacrificed, so blended become the interests of commercial nations that an injury to one is an injury to the other. The United States must either adopt a Japanese seclusion, or she will be forced into entangling alliances, and will become the involuntary propagandist of the hideous principle of republican liberty. Conservatism is impossible: we must go backward or forward. We must decline into worse than colonial feebleness, or we must accomplish a mission of worldwide beneficence. Fogyism itself would look hopefully forward from one of our California promontories, around which break, unchecked in their wild play for six thousand miles, the giant waves of the Pacific ocean. (Plenipotentiaries from China offering unrestricted intercourse)-Fogyism itself would become a convert to progress, and fancy the very continent a vast ship voyaging triumphantly into that future, which opens bright but boundless around humanity.

"By som emeans, publicity has been given to the correspondence between the State Department and Mr. Robert M. Walsh, its agent in the negotiation for the pacification of Hayti. In the various papers which constitute this correspondence, the motives and purposes of the Administration in proffering its good offices in behalf of the Dominican republic, are frankly and clearly set forth.

"In 1821, the Spanish portion of the Island of St. Domingo voluntarily subjected itself to the government of Hayti, then presided over by Boyer. On the expulsion of Boyer, and on account of the wrongs and grievances which they had endured, with a repetition of which they were menaced, the Dominicans threw off the subjection of negro government and established an independent republic. To this step the Spanish inhabitants of St. Domingo were driven by the necessity of self-preservation. Not only were their political rights and their liberty invaded and trampled upon by the black barbarians of Hayti, but the doom of indiscriminate slaughter and extermination was incessantly held before them in the threats of the Macaya and Dessalines.

"By the most imperious necessity, then, were the Dominicans impelled to set up an independent government. Nevertheless, their act of separation was regarded as a revolt by the negroes of Hayti, who prepared to reduce the rebel whites to subjection by the strong arm of force. All the efforts of the Haytian government were unequal, however, to the reconquest of Dominica. The Spaniards defended themselves with valor and energy, and, despite the disparity of numbers, successfully repelled the invasions of their foes. They achieved and established their independence. France formally recognized the republic of Dominica. England and the United States recognized it by their acts. Still Soulouque refused to acknowledge the independence of the Doininicans, and persisted in his efforts to reduce them to subjection. In this juncture, under the apprehension of a very formidable attack by Soulouque, the Dominican government solicited the mediation of the United States, Great Britain, and France, to restore, if possible, peaceable relations with its savage neighbors. Great Britain and France promptly acceded to the proposition, impelled thereto by every consideration of justice and humanity. Without reluctance, the United States followed their example. The Government dispatched Mr. Walsh to the Haytian court, to cooperate with the representatives of Great Britain and France in the humane endeavor to persuade the Emperor Soulouque to abandon his hostile designs against the Dominicans.

"Persuasion could not appease his ferocious wrath, nor could threats drive him from his bloody purposes. He persisted in his designs against Dominica, and would in no manner acknowledge its independence. The utmost the

I have said, Mr. Chairman, that the subject to which I should ask the attention of the committee, was of a practical character. In the investigation of the policy of the Administration in the Island of Hayti, I shall attempt to prove that the doctrine of Mr. Monroe, and the principles of national law, and the dictates of humanity, and the impulses of universal manhood, that all the settled and necessary rules of conduct peculiar to the United States, as between it and the Powers of Europe, in the adjustment of the affairs of this continent, and the instruction and all-pervading sense of dignity and personal consequence which regulates the deportment of man to man, have been openly and absurdly violated. That the rights and interests of the United States, the rights and interests of a sister Republic, have been continually and wantonly sacrificed. These are strong terms, but I shall endeavor to establish the title of the Administration to yet stronger epithets. And here, sir, in advance of the argument, and assuming, for a moment, what I propose to prove, I must express my astonishment and mortification at the course of the central Democratic journal, (The Union,) in regard to this affair. This journal, which should be the organ of the party-which should exert an immense inEven in the imperfect history of the Island of fluence in the formation of public opinion-which Hayti here given, it is clear that the Dominicans should gather, with patient labor, correct informawere entitled to their independence in the judgtion for general diffusion; this paper which should ment both of the Union and the Administration; be a vigilant sentinel over the doings of the Administration, has selected this disgraceful negotia-ent, they invited the United States to protect them that being so entitled, and in fact being independtion for its approbation. The Union has exhibited the last degree of ignorance and thoughtlessness in its article upon this subject, and has not only failed to throw any light upon it, but has not even

reflected truly the conclusions or reasoning of

even the most careless observers of passing events. We want beyond everything a party organ which shall be conducted, not as a commercial specula

mediating Powers could effect was the prolongation of an

existing truce.

"And this was the issue of a negotiation for which the Administration deserves credit. It originated in an impulse of humanity, and sought to protect a civilized community from the oppression and ferocity of a blood-thirsty savage. The mission of Mr. Walsh was a mission of peace and true philanthropy."

against a savage whose power was originally founded on murder, and continued and sustained by lawless outrage. The Union indorses this paragraph from the instructions of Mr. Webster to

Mr. Walsh, the agent who conducted the nego

tiation:

"You will then, conjointly with your colleagues, require the Emperor to conclude a permanent pease with the Do

HO. OF REPS.

minican government upon the basis which you may jointly prescribe to him, or to consent to a truce with that governiment of not less than ten years.

"The Emperor should be made properly aware of the dangers which he and his country may encounter, if he should be unfortunately advised to reject reasonable terms of pacification; but you will stop at remonstrance until further notice."

Now, if this means anything, it means that the United States assert a right to intervene forcibly, if necessary, in the affairs of the island, and that that intervention has been made in a way that calls for "the warmest commendations" from the Union. Those warmest commendations are bestowed upon the total failure "to appease his or "drive him (Soulouque's) ferocious wrath," from his bloody purpose." If the Union desired to defend or explain this contemptible failure, it would have been generous to the Administration; but to bestow the warmest commendations upon it for permitting a bloody savage-not acknowledged by the very Administration itself as one of the recognized Powers of the earth-to mock and defy it, while he does the very thing about which the issue has been made, is self-evident nonsense. This is the plain statement: The United States says to Soulouque, You shall not make war on the republic of Dominica; Soulouque says, I will make war on the republic of Dominica; and the United States don't say anything more-but the Union says, it is "an energetic and wise administration of the foreign affairs of the country.

Oh, shade of Dogberry! rejoice, that at length thy profound teachings are appreciated by a Whig Administration and a Democratic editor:

"Dogberry. You shall comprehend all vagrom men ; you are to bid any man-Stand, in the prince's name. "Watchman. How if he will not stand? "Dogberry. Why then, take no note of him, but let him go; and presently call the rest of the watch together, and thank God you are rid of a knave."

But, sir, the Union seems wholly unconscious that the Administration has not been content to render itself simply ridiculous, and contemptible; but that to do so effectually, it has violated a principle, the very clearest and least liable to dispute in our entire foreign policy. I allude to the doctrine of Monroe. The Union makes itself responsible for the joint mediation of France and England, accepted by the Administration in direct and apparently intentional, gratuitous, and wanton violation of the policy which is essential alike to our safety and our honor. In another connection, I will state the doctrine, and what I conceive to be its meaning and effect; but for the present purpose, I would only direct the attention of the Union to the National Intelligencer of December 23d, where "non-interference on the part of European Powers with the independent Governments of the New World," is stated as an admitted principle of all parties--apparently in the same happy oblivion of the course of the Administration in this and other transactions, as the Union.

But leaving the Democratic organ to the consolation to be derived from the sympathy of the Republic, I will examine the course of the Administration in regard to Hayti, by the light of its own official correspondence, and other reliable sources of information. The momentous importance of this island to the United States in a com mercial point of view, and its still greater importance as a naval depôt, has been strangely overlooked. I do not speak of the policy of its annexation, nor do I contemplate its acquisition by the United States; nor do I believe that the course of the next Administration ought to be or will be shaped with any such purpose; but this I do say is obvious from a single glance, that its independence of Europe is of more moment to us than that of Cuba; and that the protection of the white republic, which embraces two thirds of its surface, against the negro empire which holds and ruins while it holds the other third, is at once our duty and our interest, and that such interference should be without the cooperation of any European Power; but that in that island, more than elsewhere, the interference of Europe, whether as joint mediators, or in any other way, should be effectually prevented. The dependence of Cuba on Spain is the cause of the embarrassments and difficulties which have sprung up in that direction.

Hayti has for nearly thirty years been wholly independent of all European power. The island contains about thirty thousand square miles. Of

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

this area,

about one third of its western end is in possession of Soulouque, and the remaining two thirds constitute the territory of the republic of Dominica. It is blessed with a climate the most delightful, and a soil the most productive; it lies to the windward of Cuba, and holds it, in fact, a mere prisoner in its hands if in the possession of any naval or military power. By its geographical position, it is the true key to the Gulf of Mexico, and to both oceans the natural Queen of the Antilles. It has upon its northeast side a bay called Samaná, perhaps the finest in the world, and which is said at this time to be occupied by France; a bay of which a French political writer of eminence speaks in these words:

"There are three points in the Atlantic which assure the maritime preponderance to the great power which shall establish itself on either one of them-the little Island of St. Thomas, the Mole of St. Nicholas, (in Hayti,) and the Bay of Samaná. St. Thomas, at present the entrepôt and maritime center of that part of the world, is nothing but a barren rock, to which everything-even wood and water-has to be brought from abroad: and besides, it belongs to Denmark. The Mole of St. Nicholas is surrounded and commanded by a compact circuit of high mountains, which circumstance requires the military occupation of a very extensive territory; it belongs, moreover, to the Haytians. There remains Samaná. Of all the bays in the world, the Bay of Samaná is at once the most vast, the most secure, and the best defended on the side of the land and of the sea; while all the riches of the mineral and vegetable kingdomsfrom gold to coal, from ship-timber to precious shrubsare found accumulated in the peninsula which gives it its name."

"Where, then, shall we search for the secret of the hesitation, which nothing without or within can excuse? Is it in the strange illusion of one of our last Ministers of Foreign Affairs, who, in reply to one that was representing to him the danger of the occupation of Samaná by the United States, said: 'Fortunately the English are yet in Jamaica;' so, too, were the English in Oregon ?"

*

"No, it lies, I fear, in the traditional maxim of the bureau: It is none of our business. None of our business! Happy, indeed, is that country which can act on such maxims! But are we in that condition? When England is each day enlarging the distance which the year 1848 placed between ber and us," "when the United States are covering the Atlantic and Pacific with their annexationist Corsairs; do we not, by remaining asleep in our little corner, incur the risk of awaking some fine day, stifled and powerless? Our lethargy is here all the less inexcusable, inasmuch as there are no political or financial obstacles for an excuse; that in order to see our flag float over the Peninsula of Samaná, we should not have even the trouble of carrying it thither; [quere?] that, in order to conquer the finest maritime and territorial position of the New World, the tête de-pont of the passage of Panama, the future entre pôt of the two hemispheres, the key of the two oceans, would only require of us a simple monosyllable and a single nod of the head. But why say this aloud? Some one will object to me. Good God! to make known here what all the world, except ourselves, knows already."

And again:

These considerations no wise people will overlook. It is true, that at present, while the resources of both divisions of the island are exhausted by wars and preparations for wars against each other, the commerce of the Island seems comparatively unimportant. The exports of the Dominican republic are about one million annually, and Haytí about three millions; the popula-support, it dries up the very sources of national prosperity, lation of Dominica being about one hundred and twenty-five thousand, of which only fifteen thousand are pure blacks, thirty thousand whites, and the balance blancos, or mixed, and Hayti about seven hundred thousand. This conmerce has been declining, as has the actual produce of the island, steadily since its occupation by the French, in 1787, 1788, and 1789. In those years, the exports from Hayti alone, one third of the island-and with a population, all told, of five hundred and thirty-five thousand-was $8,783,000; the consequence is, that Dominica, which has a soil equally productive, and twice as extensive, would, if she were suffered to, equal the condition of Hayti under the French in 1787, 1788, and 1789, sustain a population of more than a million, and export over fifty millions. This is an estimate infinitely lower than the facts justify, but it is sufficient to show that the interest of the United States consists with its duty; that all the motives, pecuniary advantage, security for our trade in the Gulf, and the dictates of humanity, should impel us to the effectual protection of the Dominicans.

But no motive of interest would be sufficient to direct national policy as against the public sentiment of civilized and enlightened nations or the plain dictates of morality and justice.

Has the United States a right to interfere? The Administration has not only settled that question as against itself by an actual interference, but it

"I thought I might then try the effect of an argument which I took care to represent as wholly unofficial and private, my Government having no knowledge of it whatever. The day before I left Norfolk I was told by a friend that he had been offered a command in an expedition which was contemplated to go to St. Domingo and assist its inhabitants against the Haytians. This fact I communicated to perilous probability that should such an expedition ever the Minister with all plausible emphasis, dwelling upon the land upon the island, all the miseries and horrors with which the Emperor was now threatening the Dominicans would be brought to his own door; that the desperadoes composing it would never rest until they had exhausted every effort to overwhelm the empire, and that even if they should fail in destroying it, the evils they would suffer would be almost equivalent to ruin. The only sure way, I added, to arrest the danger was to conclude a peace, and by thus depriving the expedition of the lawful motive of lending aid to a people whose independence was wrongfully assailed. it would become the duty of the United States to prevent it from leaving their shores.

The chord was one which seemed to vibrate more strongly than any other, for the Government has been in great dread of such an expedition ever since the attack upon Cuba."

And again, from Mr. Walsh, as to the right to menace or use force:

"The truth is, the big ship in the harbor is not a pleasant

[Jan. 6,

Ho. OF REPS.

spectacle to his eyes, and the sending such a one just now, is a ceremony of which he would much prefer the breach to the observance. It is a pity the commodore cannot pro tract his stay here, as the presence of the steamer would materially assist our negotiations, the logic of force being, I am afraid, the only kind which his government thoroughly comprehends, or at least is disposed to respect.

But as to the views of the Department of State of the national character of Hayti and the government of Soulouque, the following to Mr. Walsh, from Mr. Webster, is conclusive:

"It is presumed, however, that in process of time-and perhaps before long-if the Haytian government shall abandon its ambitious projects of foreign conquest, shall devote its attention to the improvement of its own people, and shall succeed in that object, so as to cominand the respect of dispassionate and impartial men, no nation whose interests may dictate the measure will hesitate to send consuls to their ports or to recognize Haytian consuls in their ports."

Could anything be clearer? The Government itself asserts the right to coerce the Haytian outlaw, and refuses to recognize the absurd and monstrous empire as one of the Powers of the earth, entitled to the respect or countenance of the civilized world. One other extract from Mr. Walsh's report, and the diplomatic history of this affair, as furnished by the Government, is finished. In it is confessed the failure of the whole mission, and the only honorable and manly course indicated. It has been, however, wholly disregarded:

"That result can only be accomplished by coercing the Haytian government. All persuasion and argument are thrown away upon it, all sense of duty and justice and right is merged by it in sanguinary ambition and ferocious vindictiveness. The Dominicans will listen to no terms which do not establish their national sovereignty, which they have so long and so successfully defended.

"They would prefer total extermination, as they declare and as their conduct demonstrates, to falling again under the atrocious despotism which they have shaken off; and every consideration of interest, of justice, of humanity demands that their independence should be placed on a secure and permanent basis."

comprehensive view of this question. Has the I will, however, Mr. Chairman, take a more United States a right to intervene for the protection of Dominica against Soulouque? The facts and principles which are necessary to prove this right, are often identical, and always connected with those which establish the obligation of the Government to forbid, and at any hazard to prevent, the interference of any European Power, especially France or England, in the affair.

The conclusion as to the policy of the Government, which has contemptibly failed in the assertion of the right, and which has, without any justification or necessity, or any good result, in fact violated the obligation, is inevitable. Before going into these facts, before giving a brief account of the relations of the Island of Hayti to Europe and to ourselves, and its different parts to each other, and of the submission by this Government to the interference of France and England, it is well to recur to and carry with us distinctly the called the Monroe doctrine. In the seventh mesrule of foreign policy, and its reasons, which is sage of Mr. Monroe, this clear and luminous exposition of the doctrine occurs:

"It was stated at the commencement of the last session that a great effort was then making in Spain and Portugal to improve the condition of the people of those countries, and that it appeared to be conducted with extraordinary moderation. It need scarcely be remarked that the result has been, so far, very different from what was then anticipated. Of events in that quarter of the globe, with which we have so much intercourse, and from which we derive our origin, we have always been anxious and interested spectators. The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellow-men on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European Powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced, that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied Powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective Governments. And to the defense of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor, and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those Powers, to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies and dependencies of any European Power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and