Chapter M: LE DUC: I am specially directed to call the attention of His (5)

_Third. As to both duties and lands_.--The joint resolution of the 30th of April, 1816, provides that the Secretary of the Treasury "be required and directed to adopt such measures as he may deem necessary to cause, as soon as may be, all duties, taxes, debts, or sums of money accruing or becoming payable to the United States to be collected and paid in the legal currency of the United States, or Treasury notes, or notes of the Bank of the United States, _as by law provided and declared_, or in notes of banks which are payable and paid on demand in the said legal currency of the United States, and that from and after the 20th day of February next no such duties, taxes, debts, or sums of money accruing or becoming payable to the United States as aforesaid ought to be collected or received otherwise than in the legal currency of the United States, or Treasury notes, or notes of the Bank of the United States, or in notes of banks which are payable and paid on demand in the legal currency of the United States." According to the opinion given by me as a member of your Cabinet in the month of July last, and to which I still adhere, this resolution was mandatory only as it respected the legal currency of the United States, Treasury notes, and notes of the Bank of the United States, and in respect to the notes of the State banks, though payable and paid in specie, was permissive merely in the discretion of the Secretary; and in accordance with this opinion has been the practical construction given to the resolution by the Treasury Department. It is known to you, however, that distinguished names have been vouched for the opinion that the resolution was mandatory as to the notes of all specie-paying banks; that the debtor had the right, at his option, to make payment in such notes, and that if tendered by him the Treasury officers had no discretion to refuse them.

It is thus seen that the laws now in force, so far as they _positively enjoin_ the receipt of any particular currency in payment of public dues, are confined to gold and silver, except that in certain cases Virginia land scrip and Treasury certificates are directed to be received on the sale of public lands. In my opinion, there is nothing in the bill before me repugnant to those laws. The bill does not _expressly _ declare and enact that any particular species of currency _shall be receivable _in payment of the public revenue. On the contrary, as the provisions of the first and second sections are chiefly of a _negative_ character, I think they do not take away the power of the Secretary, previously possessed under the acts of Congress, and as the agent of the President, to _forbid_ the receipt of any bank notes which are not by some act of Congress expressly made absolutely receivable in payment of the public dues.

The above view will, I think, be confirmed by a closer examination of the bill. It sets out with the assumption that there is a currency established by law (i. e., gold and silver); and it further assumes that the public revenue of all descriptions ought to be collected exclusively in such legal currency, or in bank notes of a certain character; and therefore it provides that the Secretary of the Treasury _shall_ take measures to effect a collection of the revenue "in the legal currency of the United States, _or_ in notes of banks which are payable and paid on demand in the said legal currency," under certain restrictions, afterwards mentioned in the act.

The question then arises: Are bank notes having the requisite characteristics placed by the clause just quoted on the same footing with the legal currency, so as to make it the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to allow the receipt of them when tendered by the debtor? In my judgment, such is not the effect of the provision.

If Congress had intended to make so important an alteration of the existing law as to compel the receiving officers to take payment in the bank notes described in the bill, the natural phraseology would have been, "in the legal currency of the United States _and_ in notes of banks which are payable and paid in the legal currency," etc. And it is reasonable to presume that Congress would have used such, phraseology, or would have gone on to make a distinct provision expressly declaring that such bank notes _should be receivable, _as was done in the bank charters of 1790 and 1816, and as was also done by the acts relative to evidences of debt, Treasury notes, and Virginia land scrip. The form of one of these provisions (the fourteenth section of the act incorporating the late Bank of the United States) will illustrate the idea I desire to present:

"SEC. 14. _And be it further enacted, _That the bills or notes of the said corporation, originally made payable, or which shall have become payable, on demand, _shall be receivable _in all payments to the United States, unless otherwise directed by act of Congress."

The difference between the language there used and that employed in the present bill is too obvious to require comment. It is true that the word "or," when it occurs in wills and agreements, is sometimes construed to mean "and," in order to give effect to the plain intent of the parties; and such a construction of the word may sometimes be given when it occurs in statutes, where the general intent of the lawmakers evidently requires it. But this construction of the word in the present case is not only unnecessary, but, in my opinion, repugnant to the whole scope of the bill, which, so far from commanding the public officers to receive bank notes in cases not required by the existing laws, introduces several new prohibitions on the receipt of such notes.

Nor do I think this one of those cases in which a choice is given to the debtor to pay in one or other of two descriptions of currency, both of which are receivable by law. Such a choice was given by the land law of the 10th of May, 1800, section 5, between specie and the evidences of the public debt of the United States then receivable by law, and also by the joint resolution of the 30th of April, 1816, between "the legal currency of the United States, or Treasury notes, or notes of the Bank of the United States, as by law provided and declared." The option given by that resolution continued in force so long as the laws providing and declaring that Treasury notes and notes of the Bank of the United States should be receivable in payments to the United States, and ceased when those laws expired. The distinction between that description of paper currency which is by law expressly made receivable in payment of public dues, and the notes of the State banks, which were only _permitted_ to be received, is plainly marked in the resolution of 1816. While the former are placed on the same footing with the legal currency, because by previous laws it had been so "_provided and declared_" the latter were left to be received or not received, at the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury, except that he was restricted from allowing any to be received which were not payable and paid on demand in the legal currency. The bank notes spoken of in the bill before me, having never been made receivable by law, must be regarded as belonging to the latter class, and not to the former; and there can therefore be no greater obligation under the present bill, should it become a law, to receive them in payment than there was to receive the paper of the State banks under the resolution of 1816.

As to the difference between this bill and the joint resolution of 1816, the bill differs from that resolution in the following particulars:

First. It says nothing of Treasury notes and the notes of the Bank of the United States, which by the resolution of 1816 are recognized as having been made receivable by laws then in force in payment of public dues of all descriptions.

Second. It abridges the discretion left with the Secretary of the Treasury by that resolution, by positively forbidding the receipt of bank notes not having the characteristics described in the first and second sections of the bill; whereas the receipt of some of the notes so forbidden might, under the resolution of 1816, have been allowed by the Secretary.

Third. It forbids the making of any discrimination in respect to the receipt of bank notes between the different branches of the public revenue; whereas the Secretary of the Treasury, under the resolution of 1816, was subject to no such restraint, and had the power to make the discrimination forbidden by the bill, except as to the notes of the Bank of the United States and Treasury notes.

This bill, if approved, will change the resolution of 1816, so far as it now remains in force, in the second and third particulars just mentioned, but in my opinion, as already suggested, will change it in no other respect.

II. What is the extent of the supervision and control allowed by this bill to the Secretary of the Treasury over the notes to be received by the deposit banks?

And does it allow him to direct what particular notes shall or shall not be received for lands or for duties?

_Answer_. After maturely considering, so far as time has been allowed me, the several provisions of the bill, I think the following conclusions may fairly be drawn from them when taken in connection with the laws now in force, and above referred to, and that should it become a law they will probably express its legal effect.

First. That the Secretary of the Treasury _can not direct _the receipt of any notes except such as are issued by banks which conform to the first section of the law and such as will be passed by the proper deposit bank to the credit of the United States as _cash_.

Second. That he _may direct_ the receipt of notes issued by banks which conform to the first section, provided the deposit bank in which the notes are to be deposited shall agree to credit them as cash.

Third. That if the deposit bank in which the money is to be deposited shall refuse to receive as cash the notes designated by the Secretary, and which such bank receives in the ordinary course of business on general deposit, he may withdraw the public deposits and select another depository which will agree to receive them.

Fourth. That if he can not find a depository which will so agree, then that the Secretary can not direct or authorize the receipt of any notes except such as the deposit bank primarily entitled to the deposits will agree to receive and deposit as cash.

Fifth. That although a deposit bank might be willing to receive from the collectors and receivers, and to credit as _cash_, notes of certain banks which conform to the first section, yet, for the reasons before stated, I am of opinion that the Secretary is not _obliged_ to allow the receipt of such notes.

Sixth. The Secretary is forbidden to make any discrimination in _the funds receivable _"between the different branches of the public revenue," and therefore, though he may forbid the receipt of the notes of any particular bank or class of banks not excluded by the bill, and may forbid the receipt of notes of denominations larger than those named in the bill, yet when he issues any such prohibition it must apply to _all_ the branches of the public revenue.

Seventh. If I am right in the foregoing propositions, the result will be that the proposed law will leave in the Secretary of the Treasury power to _prohibit_ the receipt of particular _notes provided his prohibition apply to both lands and duties, _and power to _direct_ what particular notes allowed by the law shall be received _provided he can find a deposit bank which will agree to receive and [credit] them as cash_.

III. Are the deposit banks the sole judges under this bill of what notes they will receive, or are they bound to receive the notes of every specie-paying bank, chartered or unchartered, wherever situated, in any part of the United States?

_Answer_. In my opinion the deposit banks, under the bill in question, will be the sole judges of the notes to be received by them from any collector or receiver of public money, and they will not be bound to receive the notes of any other bank whose notes they may choose to reject, provided they apply the same rule to the United States which they apply to their own depositors. In other words, the general rule as to what notes are to be received as cash, prescribed by each deposit bank for the regulation of its ordinary business, must be complied with by the collectors and receivers whose moneys are to be deposited with that bank. But it will not therefore follow that those officers will be bound to receive what the bank generally receives, because, as already stated, they may refuse of their own accord, or under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, any bank notes not expressly directed by act of Congress to be received in payment of the public dues.

I have thus answered the several questions proposed on the bill before me; and though I have been necessarily obliged to examine the subject with much haste, I have no other doubts as to the soundness of the construction above given than such as belong to discussions of this nature and to a proper sense of the fallibility of human judgment. It is, however, my duty to remind you that very different opinions were expressed in the course of the debates on the proposed law by some of the members who took part therein. It would seem from these debates that the bill, in some instances at least, was supported under the impression that it would compel the Treasury officers to receive all bank notes possessing all the characteristics described in the first and second sections, and that the Secretary of the Treasury would have no power to forbid their receipt. It must be confessed that the language is sufficiently ambiguous to give some plausibility to such a construction, and that it seems to derive some support from the refusal of the House of Representatives to consider an amendment reported by the Committee of Ways and Means of that House, which would substantially have given the bill, in explicit terms, the interpretation I have put on it, and have removed the uncertainty which now pervades it. Under these circumstances it may reasonably be expected that the true meaning of the bill, should it be passed into a law, will become a subject of discussion and controversy, and probably remain involved in much perplexity and doubt until it shall have been settled by a judicial decision. How far these latter considerations are to be regarded by you in your decision on the bill is a question which belongs to another place, and on which, therefore, I forbear to enlarge in this communication. I have the honor to be, sir, with high respect, your obedient servant,

B.F. BUTLER.

AN ACT designating and limiting the funds receivable for the revenues of the United States.

_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled_. That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and hereby is, required to adopt such measures as he may deem necessary to effect a collection of the public revenue of the United States, whether arising from duties, taxes, debts, or sales of lands, in the manner and on the principles herein provided; that is, that no such duties, taxes, debts, or sums of money, payable for lands, shall be collected or received otherwise than in the legal currency of the United States, or in notes of banks which are payable and paid on demand in the said legal currency of the United States under the following restrictions and conditions in regard to such notes, to wit: From and after the passage of this act the notes of no bank which shall issue or circulate bills or notes of a less denomination than five dollars shall be received on account of the public dues; and from and after the thirtieth day of December, eighteen hundred and thirty-nine, the notes of no bank which shall issue or circulate bills or notes of a less denomination than ten dollars shall be so receivable; and from and after the thirtieth day of December, one thousand eight hundred and forty-one, the like prohibition shall be extended to the notes of all banks issuing bills or notes of a less denomination than twenty dollars.

SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted, _That no notes shall be received by the collectors or receivers of the public money which the banks in which they are to be deposited shall not, under the supervision and control of the Secretary of the Treasury, agree to pass to the credit of the United States as cash: _Provided_, That if any deposit bank shall refuse to receive and pass to the credit of the United States as cash any notes receivable under the provisions of this act, which said bank, in the ordinary course of business, receives on general deposit, the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to withdraw the public deposits from said bank.

SEC. 3. _And be it further enacted, _That this act shall not be so construed as to prohibit receivers or collectors of the dues of the Government from receiving for the public lands any kind of land scrip or Treasury certificates now authorized by law, but the same shall hereafter be received for the public lands in the same way and manner as has heretofore been practiced; and it shall not be lawful for the Secretary of the Treasury to make any discrimination in the funds receivable between the different branches of the public revenue, except as is provided in this section.

JAMES K. POLK,

_Speaker of the House of Representatives_.

W.R. KING,

_President of the Senate pro tempore_.

I certify that this act did originate in the Senate.

ASBURY DICKINS,

_Secretary_.

PROCLAMATION.

[From Senate Journal, Twenty-fourth Congress, second session, p. 355.]

DECEMBER 20, 1836.

_The President of the United States to ------, Senator for the State of ------_.

By virtue of the power vested in me by the Constitution, I hereby convene the Senate of the United States to meet in the Senate Chamber on the 4th day of March next, at 10 o'clock in the forenoon, to receive any communication the President of the United States may think it his duty to make.

ANDREW JACKSON.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS.

WAR DEPARTMENT,

_February 15, 1837_.

Major-General ALEXANDER MACOMB,

_President of the Court of Inquiry, etc._

SIR: I have the honor to inclose a copy of the opinion of the President of the United States on the proceedings of the court of inquiry of which you are president, relative to the campaign against the Creek Indians, and, in compliance with the direction at the close thereof, to transmit herewith those proceedings, with the documentary evidence referred to therein, for the further action of the court.

Very respectfully, your most obedient servant,

B.F. BUTLER,

_Secretary of War ad interim_.

P.S.--The proceedings and a portion of the documents accompany this. The balance of the documents (except Nos. 204 and 209, which will be sent to-morrow) are in a separate package, and sent by the same mail.

WASHINGTON, _February 14, 1837_.

The President has carefully examined the proceedings of the court of inquiry recently held at the city of Frederick, by virtue of Orders Nos. 65 and 68, so far as the same relate to the causes of the delay in opening and prosecuting the campaign in Georgia and Alabama against the hostile Creek Indians in the year 1836, and has maturely considered the opinion of the court on this part of the subject referred to it.

The order constituting the court directs it, among other things--

To inquire and examine into the causes of the delay in opening and
prosecuting the campaign in Georgia and Alabama against the hostile
Creek Indians in the year 1836, and into every subject connected with
the military operations in the campaign aforesaid, and, after fully
investigating the same, to report the facts, together with its opinion
on the whole subject, for the information of the President.

It appears from the proceedings that after the testimony of nine witnesses had been received by the court, and after more than one hundred documents bearing on the subject had also been produced in evidence, and after Major-General Scott had addressed the court on the subject, the court proceeded to pronounce its opinion, as follows:

Upon a careful examination of the abundant testimony taken in the
foregoing case the court is of opinion that no delay which it was
practicable to have avoided was made by Major-General Scott in opening
the campaign against the Creek Indians. On the contrary, it appears
that he took the earliest measures to provide arms, munitions, and
provisions for his forces, who were found almost wholly destitute; and
as soon as arms could be put into the hands of the volunteers they
were, in succession, detached and placed in position to prevent the
enemy from retiring upon Florida, and whence they could move against
the main body of the enemy as soon as equipped for offensive
operations.

From the testimony of the governor of Georgia, of Major-General
Sanford, commander of the Georgia volunteers, and many other witnesses
of high rank and standing who were acquainted with the topography of
the country and the position and strength of the enemy, the court is
of opinion that the plan of campaign adopted by Major-General Scott
was well calculated to lead to successful results, and that it was
prosecuted by him, as far as practicable, with zeal and ability, until
recalled from the command upon representations made by Major-General
Jesup, his second in command, from Fort Mitchell, in a letter bearing
date the 20th of June, 1836, addressed to F.P. Blair, esq., at
Washington, marked "private," containing a request that it be shown to
the President; which letter was exposed and brought to light by the
dignified and magnanimous act of the President in causing it to be
placed on file in the Department of War as an official document, and
which forms part of the proceedings. (See Document No. 214.) Conduct
so extraordinary and inexplicable on the part of Major-General Jesup,
in reference to the character of said letter, should, in the opinion
of the court, be investigated.

The foregoing opinion is not accompanied by any report of the _facts_ in the case, as required by the order constituting the court; on the contrary, the facts are left to be gathered from the mass of oral and documentary evidence contained in the proceedings, and thus a most important part of the duty assigned to the court remains unexecuted. Had the court stated the facts of the case as established to its satisfaction by the evidence before it, the President, on comparing such state of facts found by the court with its opinion, would have distinctly understood the views entertained by the court in respect to the degree of promptitude and energy which ought to be displayed in a campaign against Indians--and one which the President's examination of the evidence has not supplied, inasmuch as he has no means of knowing whether the conclusions drawn by him from the evidence agree with those of the court.

The opinion of the court is also argumentative, and wanting in requisite precision, inasmuch as it states that "no delay _which it was practicable to have avoided was made by Major-General Scott_ in opening the campaign against the Creek Indians," etc.; thus leaving it to be inferred, but not distinctly finding, that there was some delay, and that it was made by some person other than Major-General Scott, without specifying in what such delay consisted, when it occurred, how long it continued, nor by whom it was occasioned. Had the court found a state of facts, as required by the order constituting it, the uncertainty now existing in this part of the opinion would have been obviated and the justice of the opinion itself readily determined.

That part of the opinion of the court which animadverts on the letter addressed by Major-General Jesup to F.P. Blair, esq., bearing date the 20th of June, 1836, and which presents the same as a subject demanding investigation, appears to the President to be wholly unauthorized by the order constituting the court, and by which its jurisdiction was confined to an inquiry into the causes of the delay in opening and prosecuting the campaign against the hostile Creeks and into such subjects as were connected with the military operations in that campaign. The causes of the recall of Major-General Scott from the command and the propriety or impropriety of the conduct of General Jesup in writing the letter referred to were not submitted to the court as subjects of inquiry. The court itself appears to have been of this opinion, inasmuch as no notice was given to General Jesup of the pendency of the proceedings, nor had he any opportunity to cross-examine and interrogate the witnesses, nor to be heard in respect to his conduct in the matter remarked on by the court.

For the several reasons above assigned, the President disapproves the opinion of the court, and remits to it the proceedings in question, to the end that the court may resume the consideration of the evidence and from the same, and from such further evidence as shall be taken (in case the court shall deem it necessary to take further evidence), may ascertain and report with distinctness and precision, especially as to time, place, distances, and other circumstances, all the facts touching the opening and prosecuting of the campaign in Georgia and Alabama against the hostile Creek Indians in the year 1836, and the military operations in the said campaign, and touching the delay, if any there was, in the opening or prosecuting of said campaign, and the causes of such delay; and to the end, also, that the court, whilst confining its opinion to the subject-matters submitted to it, may fully and distinctly express its opinion on those matters for the information of the President.

The Secretary of War _ad interim _will cause the proceedings of the court on the subject of the campaign against the Creek Indians, with the documentary evidence referred to therein and a copy of the foregoing opinion, to be transmitted to Major-General Alexander Macomb, president of the court, for the proper action thereon.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, _February 18, 1837_.

The proceedings of the court of inquiry recently assembled and still sitting at Frederick by virtue of Orders Nos. 65 and 68, so far as the same relate to the causes of the failure of the campaign of Major-General Scott against the Seminole Indians in 1836, were heretofore submitted to the President, and the examination thereof suspended in consequence of the necessary connection between the case of Major-General Scott and that of Major-General Gaines, also referred to the same court, and not yet reported on. Certain other proceedings of the same court having been since examined by the President, and having been found defective, and therefore remitted to the court for reconsideration, the President has deemed it proper, in order to expedite the matter, to look into the first-mentioned proceedings for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the like defects existed therein. On this inspection of the record he perceives that the court has not reported, except in a few instances, the facts of the case, as required by the order constituting the court, and in those instances the facts found by the court are stated in a very general form and without sufficient minuteness and precision; and he therefore remits the said proceedings to the court, to the end that the court may resume the consideration of the evidence, and from the same, and from such further evidence as may be taken (in case the court shall deem it necessary to take further evidence), may ascertain and report with distinctness and precision all the facts touching the subject to be inquired of, established to the satisfaction of the court by the evidence before it, and especially the times when and places where the several occurrences which are deemed material by the court in the formation of its opinion actually took place, with the amount of force on both sides at the different periods of time embraced in the transactions, and the positions thereof, and such other circumstances as are deemed material by the court; together with its opinion on the whole subject, for the information of the President.

The Secretary of War _ad interim_ will cause the proceedings of the court in the case of Major-General Scott, first above mentioned, with the documentary evidence referred to therein and a copy hereof, to be transmitted to Major-General Alexander Macomb, president of the court, for the proper action thereon.

ANDREW JACKSON.

FAREWELL ADDRESS.

MARCH 4, 1837.

FELLOW-CITIZENS: Being about to retire finally from public life, I beg leave to offer you my grateful thanks for the many proofs of kindness and confidence which I have received at your hands. It has been my fortune in the discharge of public duties, civil and military, frequently to have found myself in difficult and trying situations, where prompt decision and energetic action were necessary, and where the interest of the country required that high responsibilities should be fearlessly encountered; and it is with the deepest emotions of gratitude that I acknowledge the continued and unbroken confidence with which you have sustained me in every trial. My public life has been a long one, and I can not hope that it has at all times been free from errors; but I have the consolation of knowing that if mistakes have been committed they have not seriously injured the country I so anxiously endeavored to serve, and at the moment when I surrender my last public trust I leave this great people prosperous and happy, in the full enjoyment of liberty and peace, and honored and respected by every nation of the world.

If my humble efforts have in any degree contributed to preserve to you these blessings, I have been more than rewarded by the honors you have heaped upon me, and, above all, by the generous confidence with which you have supported me in every peril, and with which you have continued to animate and cheer my path to the closing hour of my political life. The time has now come when advanced age and a broken frame warn me to retire from public concerns, but the recollection of the many favors you have bestowed upon me is engraven upon my heart, and I have felt that I could not part from your service without making this public acknowledgment of the gratitude I owe you. And if I use the occasion to offer to you the counsels of age and experience, you will, I trust, receive them with the same indulgent kindness which you have so often extended to me, and will at least see in them an earnest desire to perpetuate in this favored land the blessings of liberty and equal law.

We have now lived almost fifty years under the Constitution framed by the sages and patriots of the Revolution. The conflicts in which the nations of Europe were engaged during a great part of this period, the spirit in which they waged war against each other, and our intimate commercial connections with every part of the civilized world rendered it a time of much difficulty for the Government of the United States. We have had our seasons of peace and of war, with all the evils which precede or follow a state of hostility with powerful nations. We encountered these trials with our Constitution yet in its infancy, and under the disadvantages which a new and untried government must always feel when it is called upon to put forth its whole strength without the lights of experience to guide it or the weight of precedents to justify its measures. But we have passed triumphantly through all these difficulties. Our Constitution is no longer a doubtful experiment, and at the end of nearly half a century we find that it has preserved unimpaired the liberties of the people, secured the rights of property, and that our country has improved and is flourishing beyond any former example in the history of nations.

In our domestic concerns there is everything to encourage us, and if you are true to yourselves nothing can impede your march to the highest point of national prosperity. The States which had so long been retarded in their improvement by the Indian tribes residing in the midst of them are at length relieved from the evil, and this unhappy race--the original dwellers in our land--are now placed in a situation where we may well hope that they will share in the blessings of civilization and be saved from that degradation and destruction to which they were rapidly hastening while they remained in the States; and while the safety and comfort of our own citizens have been greatly promoted by their removal, the philanthropist will rejoice that the remnant of that ill-fated race has been at length placed beyond the reach of injury or oppression, and that the paternal care of the General Government will hereafter watch over them and protect them.

If we turn to our relations with foreign powers, we find our condition equally gratifying. Actuated by the sincere desire to do justice to every nation and to preserve the blessings of peace, our intercourse with them has been conducted on the part of this Government in the spirit of frankness; and I take pleasure in saying that it has generally been met in a corresponding temper. Difficulties of old standing have been surmounted by friendly discussion and the mutual desire to be just, and the claims of our citizens, which had been long withheld, have at length been acknowledged and adjusted and satisfactory arrangements made for their final payment; and with a limited, and I trust a temporary, exception, our relations with every foreign power are now of the most friendly character, our commerce continually expanding, and our flag respected in every quarter of the world.

These cheering and grateful prospects and these multiplied favors we owe, under Providence, to the adoption of the Federal Constitution. It is no longer a question whether this great country can remain happily united and flourish under our present form of government. Experience, the unerring test of all human undertakings, has shown the wisdom and foresight of those who formed it, and has proved that in the union of these States there is a sure foundation for the brightest hopes of freedom and for the happiness of the people. At every hazard and by every sacrifice this Union must be preserved.

The necessity of watching with jealous anxiety for the preservation of the Union was earnestly pressed upon his fellow-citizens by the Father of his Country in his Farewell Address. He has there told us that "while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands;" and he has cautioned us in the strongest terms against the formation of parties on geographical discriminations, as one of the means which might disturb our Union and to which designing men would be likely to resort.

The lessons contained in this invaluable legacy of Washington to his countrymen should be cherished in the heart of every citizen to the latest generation; and perhaps at no period of time could they be more usefully remembered than at the present moment; for when we look upon the scenes that are passing around us and dwell upon the pages of his parting address, his paternal counsels would seem to be not merely the offspring of wisdom and foresight, but the voice of prophecy, foretelling events and warning us of the evil to come. Forty years have passed since this imperishable document was given to his countrymen. The Federal Constitution was then regarded by him as an experiment--and he so speaks of it in his Address--but an experiment upon the success of which the best hopes of his country depended; and we all know that he was prepared to lay down his life, if necessary, to secure to it a full and a fair trial. The trial has been made. It has succeeded beyond the proudest hopes of those who framed it. Every quarter of this widely extended nation has felt its blessings and shared in the general prosperity produced by its adoption. But amid this general prosperity and splendid success the dangers of which he warned us are becoming every day more evident, and the signs of evil are sufficiently apparent to awaken the deepest anxiety in the bosom of the patriot. We behold systematic efforts publicly made to sow the seeds of discord between different parts of the United States and to place party divisions directly upon geographical distinctions; to excite the _South_ against the _North_ and the _North_ against the _South_, and to force into the controversy the most delicate and exciting topics--topics upon which it is impossible that a large portion of the Union can ever speak without strong emotion. Appeals, too, are constantly made to sectional interests in order to influence the election of the Chief Magistrate, as if it were desired that he should favor a particular quarter of the country instead of fulfilling the duties of his station with impartial justice to all; and the possible dissolution of the Union has at length become an ordinary and familiar subject of discussion. Has the warning voice of Washington been forgotten, or have designs already been formed to sever the Union? Let it not be supposed that I impute to all of those who have taken an active part in these unwise and unprofitable discussions a want of patriotism or of public virtue. The honorable feeling of State pride and local attachments finds a place in the bosoms of the most enlightened and pure. But while such men are conscious of their own integrity and honesty of purpose, they ought never to forget that the citizens of other States are their political brethren, and that however mistaken they may be in their views, the great body of them are equally honest and upright with themselves. Mutual suspicions and reproaches may in time create mutual hostility, and artful and designing men will always be found who are ready to foment these fatal divisions and to inflame the natural jealousies of different sections of the country. The history of the world is full of such examples, and especially the history of republics.

What have you to gain by division and dissension? Delude not yourselves with the belief that a breach once made may be afterwards repaired. If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword. Neither should you deceive yourselves with the hope that the first line of separation would be the permanent one, and that nothing but harmony and concord would be found in the new associations formed upon the dissolution of this Union. Local interests would still be found there, and unchastened ambition. And if the recollection of common dangers, in which the people of these United States stood side by side against the common foe, the memory of victories won by their united valor, the prosperity and happiness they have enjoyed under the present Constitution, the proud name they bear as citizens of this great Republic--if all these recollections and proofs of common interest are not strong enough to bind us together as one people, what tie will hold united the new divisions of empire when these bonds have been broken and this Union dissevered? The first line of separation would not last for a single generation; new fragments would be torn off, new leaders would spring up, and this great and glorious Republic would soon be broken into a multitude of petty States, without commerce, without credit, jealous of one another, armed for mutual aggression, loaded with taxes to pay armies and leaders, seeking aid against each other from foreign powers, insulted and trampled upon by the nations of Europe, until, harassed with conflicts and humbled and debased in spirit, they would be ready to submit to the absolute dominion of any military adventurer and to surrender their liberty for the sake of repose. It is impossible to look on the consequences that would inevitably follow the destruction of this Government and not feel indignant when we hear cold calculations about the value of the Union and have so constantly before us a line of conduct so well calculated to weaken its ties.

There is too much at stake to allow pride or passion to influence your decision. Never for a moment believe that the great body of the citizens of any State or States can deliberately intend to do wrong. They may, under the influence of temporary excitement or misguided opinions, commit mistakes; they may be misled for a time by the suggestions of self-interest; but in a community so enlightened and patriotic as the people of the United States argument will soon make them sensible of their errors, and when convinced they will be ready to repair them. If they have no higher or better motives to govern them, they will at least perceive that their own interest requires them to be just to others, as they hope to receive justice at their hands.

But in order to maintain the Union unimpaired it is absolutely necessary that the laws passed by the constituted authorities should be faithfully executed in every part of the country, and that every good citizen should at all times stand ready to put down, with the combined force of the nation, every attempt at unlawful resistance, under whatever pretext it may be made or whatever shape it may assume. Unconstitutional or oppressive laws may no doubt be passed by Congress, either from erroneous views or the want of due consideration; if they are within the reach of judicial authority, the remedy is easy and peaceful; and if, from the character of the law, it is an abuse of power not within the control of the judiciary, then free discussion and calm appeals to reason and to the justice of the people will not fail to redress the wrong. But until the law shall be declared void by the courts or repealed by Congress no individual or combination of individuals can be justified in forcibly resisting its execution. It is impossible that any government can continue to exist upon any other principles. It would cease to be a government and be unworthy of the name if it had not the power to enforce the execution of its own laws within its own sphere of action.

It is true that cases may be imagined disclosing such a settled purpose of usurpation and oppression on the part of the Government as would justify an appeal to arms. These, however, are extreme cases, which we have no reason to apprehend in a government where the power is in the hands of a patriotic people. And no citizen who loves his country would in any case whatever resort to forcible resistance unless he clearly saw that the time had come when a freeman should prefer death to submission; for if such a struggle is once begun, and the citizens of one section of the country arrayed in arms against those of another in doubtful conflict, let the battle result as it may, there will be an end of the Union and with it an end to the hopes of freedom. The victory of the injured would not secure to them the blessings of liberty; it would avenge their wrongs, but they would themselves share in the common ruin.

But the Constitution can not be maintained nor the Union preserved, in opposition to public feeling, by the mere exertion of the coercive powers confided to the General Government. The foundations must be laid in the affections of the people, in the security it gives to life, liberty, character, and property in every quarter of the country, and in the fraternal attachment which the citizens of the several States bear to one another as members of one political family, mutually contributing to promote the happiness of each other. Hence the citizens of every State should studiously avoid everything calculated to wound the sensibility or offend the just pride of the people of other States, and they should frown upon any proceedings within their own borders likely to disturb the tranquillity of their political brethren in other portions of the Union. In a country so extensive as the United States, and with pursuits so varied, the internal regulations of the several States must frequently differ from one another in important particulars, and this difference is unavoidably increased by the varying principles upon which the American colonies were originally planted--principles which had taken deep root in their social relations before the Revolution, and therefore of necessity influencing their policy since they became free and independent States. But each State has the unquestionable right to regulate its own internal concerns according to its own pleasure, and while it does not interfere with the rights of the people of other States or the rights of the Union, every State must be the sole judge of the measures proper to secure the safety of its citizens and promote their happiness; and all efforts on the part of people of other States to cast odium upon their institutions, and all measures calculated to disturb their rights of property or to put in jeopardy their peace and internal tranquillity, are in direct opposition to the spirit in which the Union was formed, and must endanger its safety. Motives of philanthropy may be assigned for this unwarrantable interference, and weak men may persuade themselves for a moment that they are laboring in the cause of humanity and asserting the rights of the human race; but everyone, upon sober reflection, will see that nothing but mischief can come from these improper assaults upon the feelings and rights of others. Rest assured that the men found busy in this work of discord are not worthy of your confidence, and deserve your strongest reprobation.

In the legislation of Congress also, and in every measure of the General Government, justice to every portion of the United States should be faithfully observed. No free government can stand without virtue in the people and a lofty spirit of patriotism, and if the sordid feelings of mere selfishness shall usurp the place which ought to be filled by public spirit, the legislation of Congress will soon be converted into a scramble for personal and sectional advantages. Under our free institutions the citizens of every quarter of our country are capable of attaining a high degree of prosperity and happiness without seeking to profit themselves at the expense of others; and every such attempt must in the end fail to succeed, for the people in every part of the United States are too enlightened not to understand their own rights and interests and to detect and defeat every effort to gain undue advantages over them; and when such designs are discovered it naturally provokes resentments which can not always be easily allayed. Justice--full and ample justice--to every portion of the United States should be the ruling principle of every freeman, and should guide the deliberations of every public body, whether it be State or national.

It is well known that there have always been those amongst us who wish to enlarge the powers of the General Government, and experience would seem to indicate that there is a tendency on the part of this Government to overstep the boundaries marked out for it by the Constitution. Its legitimate authority is abundantly sufficient for all the purposes for which it was created and its powers being expressly enumerated, there can be no justification for claiming anything beyond them. Every attempt to exercise power beyond these limits should be promptly and firmly opposed, for one evil example will lead to other measures still more mischievous; and if the principle of constructive powers or supposed advantages or temporary circumstances shall ever be permitted to justify the assumption of a power not given by the Constitution, the General Government will before long absorb all the powers of legislation, and you will have in effect but one consolidated government. From the extent of our country, its diversified interests, different pursuits, and different habits, it is too obvious for argument that a single consolidated government would be wholly inadequate to watch over and protect its interests; and every friend of our free institutions should be always prepared to maintain unimpaired and in full vigor the rights and sovereignty of the States and to confine the action of the General Government strictly to the sphere of its appropriate duties.

There is, perhaps, no one of the powers conferred on the Federal Government so liable to abuse as the taxing power. The most productive and convenient sources of revenue were necessarily given to it, that it might be able to perform the important duties imposed upon it; and the taxes which it lays upon commerce being concealed from the real payer in the price of the article, they do not so readily attract the attention of the people as smaller sums demanded from them directly by the taxgatherer. But the tax imposed on goods enhances by so much the price of the commodity to the consumer, and as many of these duties are imposed on articles of necessity which are daily used by the great body of the people, the money raised by these imposts is drawn from their pockets. Congress has no right under the Constitution to take money from the people unless it is required to execute some one of the specific powers intrusted to the Government; and if they raise more than is necessary for such purposes, it is an abuse of the power of taxation, and unjust and oppressive. It may indeed happen that the revenue will sometimes exceed the amount anticipated when the taxes were laid. When, however, this is ascertained, it is easy to reduce them, and in such a case it is unquestionably the duty of the Government to reduce them, for no circumstances can justify it in assuming a power not given to it by the Constitution nor in taking away the money of the people when it is not needed for the legitimate wants of the Government.

Plain as these principles appear to be, you will yet find there is a constant effort to induce the General Government to go beyond the limits of its taxing power and to impose unnecessary burdens upon the people. Many powerful interests are continually at work to procure heavy duties on commerce and to swell the revenue beyond the real necessities of the public service, and the country has already felt the injurious effects of their combined influence. They succeeded in obtaining a tariff of duties bearing most oppressively on the agricultural and laboring classes of society and producing a revenue that could not be usefully employed within the range of the powers conferred upon Congress, and in order to fasten upon the people this unjust and unequal system of taxation extravagant schemes of internal improvement were got up in various quarters to squander the money and to purchase support. Thus one unconstitutional measure was intended to be upheld by another, and the abuse of the power of taxation was to be maintained by usurping the power of expending the money in internal improvements. You can not have forgotten the severe and doubtful struggle through which we passed when the executive department of the Government by its veto endeavored to arrest this prodigal scheme of injustice and to bring back the legislation of Congress to the boundaries prescribed by the Constitution. The good sense and practical judgment of the people when the subject was brought before them sustained the course of the Executive, and this plan of unconstitutional expenditures for the purposes of corrupt influence is, I trust, finally overthrown.