Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

age.” To the same effect froin Grotius : “ • Upon this foundation of com. mon right, a free passage through countries, rivers, or over any part of the sea, which belong to some particular people, ought to be allowed to those who require it for the necessary occasions of life, whether those occasions be in quest of settlements, after being driven from their own country, or to trade with a remote nation.” “A free passage ought to be allowed, not only to persons but to merchandise; . . . a permission which, for the interest of society, should be maintained ; nor can it be said that any one is injured by it; for though he may thereby be deprived of exclusive gain, yet the loss of what is not his due, as a matter of right, can never be considered as a damage, or the violation of a claim.”

Hence, our minister claimed, on the ground of paramount interest and necessity to our citizens, and on that of natural right founded on this necessity, a full and free navigation of this river, from its source to the sea.

The British plenipotentiaries expressed their surprise at the claim of the United States, on the ground of right. It required an enlarged view of what one nation owed in courtesy to another, to justify the British government in entering on the discussion of a claim so novel and extensive. A right claimed on one side without qualification, leaves no room for friendly concession on the other. As a concession on the part of Great Britain, for which they expected an equivalent, and as such only, they were willing to treat with the United States. They replied at length to the arguments of Mr. Rush, and alleged that he had made a wrong application of the authorities quoted. The right of navigating this river, alleged to be a right of nature, preëxistent in point of time, and incapable of annihilation, could be no other than what is generally designated in the law of nations as a perfect right, which is one that exists independent of treaty; which necessarily arises from the law of nature; which is common to all independent nations, and can never be denied or violated by any state without a breach of the law of nations. Such was the right to navigate the ocean without molestation in time of peace. Applying these principles, now universally admitted, to the case of the St. Lawrence, the American government maintained that Great Britain, possessing both shores of the river at its mouth, would be no more justified in controlling American navigation on that river, than on the high seas. But falling under the denomination of an imperfect right, it became subject to considerations entirely different.

The case of the Mississippi, it was said, was not in point. Its navigation had been opened to British subjects by the treaty of 1763, concluded after a war in which Great Britain had been successful. France had made this concession from the same motives as had induced her to cede

[ocr errors]

Canada to Great Britain. The agreement respecting that river made a part of the general provisions as to the western boundary of the British American possessions, by which the whole left side of the Mississippi was ceded to Great Britain, except the town and island of New Orleans. This reservation had been admitted on the express condition, that the navigation of the whole channel should be open to British subjects. The very fact of its having been thought necessary to insert this stipulation in the treaty, in consequence of France having retained possession of both banks of the river at a single post, led irresistibly to an inference the reverse of what was maintained by the American plenipotentiary.

Nor was the right founded upon acquired title conceded by Great Britain. If the liberty of navigating the St. Lawrence, which the people of the United States enjoyed when a part of the British empire, continued to belong to them after their separation from the mother country, the subjects of Great Britain would have an equal right, in common with American citizens, to the use of the navigable rivers of the United States, which they enjoyed when both countries were united under the same government. By the treaty which acknowledged the independence of the United States, a perpetual line of demarkation had been drawn between the two powers, no longer connected by any other ties than those of amity and conventional agreement. The people of the United States, thus separated from Great Britain, could not possibly retain any portion of the sovereignty of the British empire.

Mr. Gallatin, in September and October, 1827, wrote to Mr. Clay, that the government of Great Britain was still unwilling to entertain any proposition respecting the navigation of the St. Lawrence founded on the right claimed by the United States to navigate that river to the sea; and he advised, that, whilst the trade with the British West Indies remained interdicted, the intercourse by land or inland navigation with the North American British provinces be left to be regulated by the laws of each country, respectively. The measures of which our citizens had complained, no longer existed. The warehousing system had been extended to the ports of Montreal, Quebec, and St. Johns, and places of deposit were allowed for American produce, free of duty, in case of exportation ; which was all that we could, in that respect, ask as a matter of right. The navigation between Montreal and Quebec, either to the sea, or from the sea, could not now be obtained by treaty stipulation without what would be considered a disclaimer of the right.

Mr. Clay, in his instructions to Mr. Gallatin, having said that the president could not consent to any treaty by which the United States should renounce the right of navigating the St. Lawrence and Great Britain persisting in her refusal to acknowledge this right, the negotia. tion was unsuccessful.

a

CHAPTER XXX.

NOMINATION OF GEN. JACKSON.-MORE OF THE

COALITION.”—JACKSON'S

LETTERS ON THE TARIFF AND INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS,

Soon after the election of Mr. Adams, it became apparent that he was destined to encounter, alone, in the next presidential campaign, the opposition of his most formidable rival in 1824..

As early as October, 1825, Gen. Jackson was nominated by the legislature of Tennessee as a candidate for president in 1828. After a long preamble, in which the legislature disclaim being "influenced by the motive of state pride or personal considerations,” they resolve, “ That Gen. Andrew Jackson, of this state, be recommended to the freemen of the United States, as a fellow-citizen, who, by his numerous and faithful public services in the cabinet and in the field, his energy and decision, his political qualifications, and strict adherence to the principles of republicanism, merits to be elected to the office of chief magistrate of this union, at the next presidential election.” This resolution was said to have been unanimously adopted in one house, and with but one dissenting voice in the other.

On the next day, (October 7,) a series of resolutions was adopted, expressive of the respect and attachment entertained by the legislature towards the general, and of their purpose to receive him in the representative hall on the day next after his arrival at the seat of government; and the speakers, on behalf of the two houses, were required to deliver to him addresses, expressing the satisfaction of the legislature in relation to the course he pursued during the pendency of the late presidential election.

The general arrived at Murfreesborough on the 13th, and the next day he was conducted by a committee of the legislature to the hall, and addressed by the speakers of the two houses; to which he made an appropriate reply, and then handed in a resignation of his seat in the senate of the United States.

He assigned as reasons for his resignation, the fatigue of traveling to and from Washington, and the fact that nothing of great national importance was likely to come before congress, except the proposition to amend the constitution in relation to the election of president. He intimated that he might have thought it his duty to continue in the senate to aid in effecting such alteration. But having been apprised of his nomination, he could no longer hesitate as to the course he should pursue, and

[ocr errors]

accordingly asked to be excused from any farther service in the councils of the nation; saying, that he “could not consent to urge or encourage an alteration which might wear the appearance of being induced by selfish considerations."

He then proceeded to make some suggestions in reference to the amendment proposed to be made. He thought some new barrier to the encroachments of power was necessary. “ There is no truth,” he observed," more conclusively stamped upon all the state constitutions, as well as the federal constitution, than that which requires the great departments of power, the legislative, judicial, and executive, to be kept separate and apart.

Gratitude to the founders of our happy government, can not be lessened by honest efforts, op our part, to improve, or rather to fortify, the blessings which have been transmitted to us, with such additional safeguards as experience has proved to be necessary.

“ Upon this principle, I venture fully to accord with you in the contemplated change proposed to the constitution; and indeed would go farther. With a view to sustain more effectually in practice the axiom which divides the three great classes of power into independent, constitutional checks, I would impose a provision rendering any member of congress ineligible to office, under the general government, during the term for which he was elected, and for two years thereafter, except in cases of judicial office; and these I would except for the reason, that vacancies in this department are not frequent occurrences, and because no barrier should be interposed in selecting, to the bench, men of the first talents and integrity."

“ The effect of such a constitutional provision is obvious. By it congress, in a considerable degree, would be free from that connection with the executive department which at present gives strong ground of apprehension and jealousy on the part of the people. Members, instead of being liable to be withdrawn from legislating on the great interests of the nation, through prospects of executive patronage, would be more liberally confided in by their constituents; while their vigilance would be less interrupted by party feelings and party excitements. Calcula- . tion from intrigue or management would fail; nor would their deliberation or their investigation of subjects consume so much time. The morals of the country would be improved ; and virtue, uniting with the labors of the representatives, and with the official ministers of the law, would tend to perpetuate the honor and glory of the government.

“But if this change in the constitution should not be obtained, and important offices continue to devolve on the representatives in congress, it requires no depth of thought to be convinced, that corruption will be

a

come the order of the day; and that, under the garb of conscientious sacrifices to establish precedents for the public good, evils of serious importance to the freedom and prosperity of the republic may arise. It is through this channel that the people may expect to be attacked in their constitutional sovereignty, and where tyranny may well be apprehended to spring up in some favorable emergency. Against such inroads, every guard ought to be interposed; and none better occurs than that of closing the suspected avenue with some necessary constitutional restriction. We know human nature to be prone to evil; we are early taught to pray that we may not be led into temptation ; and hence the opinion that, by constitutional provisiou, all avenues to temptation, on the part of our political servants, should be closed.

" As, by a resolution of your honorable body, you have thought proper again to present my name to the American people, I must entreat to be excused from any farther service in the senate, and to suggest, in conclusion, that it is due to myself to practice upon the maximns recommended to others; and hence feel constrained to retire from a situation where temptations may exist, and suspicions may arise of the exercise of an influence tending to my own aggrandizement."

This nomination of Gen. Jackson by the legislature of his own state, was early followed by nominations in other parts of the country. A large portion of the friends of Mr. Crawford, having had a stronger repugnance to Gen. Jackson than to any other candidate at the last election, were for a time unwilling to unite with the friends of the latter. There being, however, no hope of succeeding with any other candidate, such union was at length effected; and the organization of the opposition to Mr. Adams may be considered as having been completed early in 1827.

Although the excitement produced by the union of the friends of Adams and Clay in the election of president had experienced some abatement, the subject had by no means been permitted to slumber.

“coalition party,” had acquired a common use among the opposition in designating the friends and supporters of the administration. Coalition ? bargain "_"

—were as familiar as household words. As electioneering arguments, they had been found too effective not to be employed in the attempt to overthrow the administration. Much of their efficiency was derived from facts and circumstances which furnished at least some apparent ground for the accusation.

In April, 1827, whether from a design to influence the approaching presidential election, or for some other purpose, the following anonymous letter was published in the Fayetteville (N. C.) Observer:

a

The term,

[ocr errors]

corruption"

« PředchozíPokračovat »