States," and that there exists no constitutional barrier to a fulfilment of that undertaking on the part of the United States. The most approved writer* on public law, declares, that "he who has made a promise to any one, has conferred upon him a true right to require the thing promised, and that, consequently, not to keep a perfect promise, is to violate the right of another; and is as manifest an injustice as that of depriving a person of his property. And further, as the engagements of a treaty impose, on the one hand, a perfect obligation, they produce, on the other, a perfect right. To violate a treaty, then, is to violate the perfect right of him with whom we have contracted, and this is to do him an injury." I conceive the character of the nation to be deeply involved in the question now before the House. If we refuse to perform the legal, moral and political obligation, which is imposed on us by the treaty of cession, to incorporate the inhabitants of the ceded territory into the union of the United States, and to admit them to the enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of citizens, we shall deserve to be branded with the odious epithet of a faithless nation, we shall merit the censure of the civilized world, and the just resentment of the people, to whom these rights and privileges ought to be extended.

Mr. Speaker, I enter, with lively sensibility, on that portion of the remarks made by the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, which menace insurrection and a dissolution of the union. Had these sentiments fallen from the gentleman in the ardor of debate, while the imagination was inflamed with an unconquerable zeal to prove the impolicy of the measure under consideration, or had they been offered in the shape of possible results, I should have regarded them only with pity and contempt: but the gentleman declares it to be his deliberate opinion, that if this bill passes, the bonds of this union are virtually dissolved; that the

* Vattel, 261.

states, which compose it, are free from their moral obligations, and that as it will be the right of all, so it will be the duty of some, to prepare definitely for a separation; amicably if they can, violently if they must.” Influenced by a desire to stamp on these expressions their merited disgrace, and to preserve dignity and decorum in our deliberations, I felt it my duty to call the gentleman to order. Perhaps, in doing so, I was actuated more by a sudden impulse of feeling, than by an accurate knowledge of parliamentary proceedings. I am still, however, impressed with a conviction, that these sacred walls-the sanctuary of the liberties of the American people, ought not to be polluted by direct invitations to rebellion against the government of which we are a constituent part; but the liberality and the courtesy of the House have overruled that opinion, and the gentleman was permitted to proceed. Are we then about to commit an act which is to burst asunder the bonds of our political union, and prostrate the glorious fabric which has been reared by the valor of our ancestors? Sir, when I look at the events which led to the acquisition of Louisiana, and the efforts made at that time, by those who opposed the measures of administration, to call forth the national energies for the purpose of securing that important point by conquest, lest it should fall into the hands of a powerful neighbor, and compare them with the declarations now made by the gentleman from Massachusetts, I am filled with astonishment. I cannot believe, that the party, with whom that gentleman is in the habit of acting, will support the visionary theories and frantic anticipations which he has advanced on the present occasion. For the honor of every real American who is ranked with the federal party, I hope that these idle dreams of political insanity will be suffered to vanish without a struggle, before the effulgent sunshine of pa

triotism.

I should, indeed, rejoice to find, that in this instance, as in the baseless impeachment instituted by the gen

tleman against the illustrious Jefferson, he should be once more exhibited to a laughing audience, a solitary unit on your journals in favor of principles so abhorrent to every good citizen. But, sir, permit me to analyze the case which it is said will be productive of this great national calamity.

[Mr. Poindexter here gave a sketch of the difficulties which had existed relative to the free navigation of the river Mississippi by the citizens of the United States, and of the manner of their settlement by the purchase of Louisiana. He then proceeded,]

This event, so highly advantageous to the nation, diffused general joy throughout the United States; but the heroes, whose valor would have hurried them into a premature and unjust war to accomplish this end, found no difficulty in expelling from their minds the idea, that this country was "so essential to us as a nation." New Orleans suddenly lost all its charms. Louisiana became a wilderness of swamps and marshes, and the vast extent of territory which we had acquired, was one day to produce the downfall of the republic.

The gentleman from Massachusetts, seems to imagine, that the crisis has arrived when this prediction is to be fulfilled. You are, says he, about to admit a "new partner into the confederacy without the original limits of the United States, which tends to diminish the political power of the original partners, and according to the undeniable principles of moral law, the obligation of our national compact is dissolved." What, sir, does the gentleman mean by political power in the original partners? Have we such a thing as patent power in the United States? Thank God, sir, we have neither counts, dukes nor lords, nor members of the grand legion of honor, nor any other grade of privileged orders in this country, who possess "political power," by lineal or collateral descent, or by purchase. In this government, all power is vested in and flows from the people, and we sit here, not as their

masters, but as their servants, and to that august tribunal are we responsible for the fidelity with which we execute the trust confided to us. Political power, then, being in the great body of the people, it cannot be definitely apportioned among the states, but each state possesses weight proportionate to its numbers. If, for instance, two thirds of the population of Virginia should remove to the Mississippi territory, which they have a perfect right to do, the influence of Virginia in the national councils, in point of representation, would be two thirds less than at present, and it might with equal justice be said, that a state, inferior in political power, at the time the compact was entered into, should remain in that situation ad infinitum, as to contend that a number of citizens, residing in a territory belonging to the United States, should not be admitted to the enjoyment of those political rights, to which from their numbers they are entitled. It results from the very nature of our government, that political influence fluctuates in proportion to the augmentation or diminution of population, in the various sections of the country. The addition of fifty thousand inhabitants to the whole people of the United States, increases the political weight of the whole, just in the same ratio that a similar addition to an army would increase its physical strength. If, as the gentleman has alleged, the proportions of political power, in the several states, is an "unalienable, essential, intangible right," it must forever remain the same, like a chartered privilege, let the weight of population rest where it may. Such a principle is inconsistent with the genius of a free government, and incompatible with the sovereign authority of the people.

Mr. Speaker, on all the great questions which have been discussed in this House for the last four years, war with England, and a separation of the eastern states from the union, have been constantly thrown in the way to obstruct the measures of the administration. Why these subjects have gone hand in hand, I

leave gentlemen, who are in the secret, to explain. It ought not to be forgotten that, on a proposition to repeal the embargo, at a time when its effects were severely felt both in Great Britain and her colonies, the gentleman from Massachusetts told us, that the people of New England were prepared for insurrection and revolt, unless that measure of resistance to the aggressing belligerents was relinquished. And contemporaneously with these opinions, uttered on the floor of the House of Representatives, the British minister, resident in the United States, made a confidential communication to his government, in which a dissolution of the union was deemed a probable event, should the commercial embarrassments of this country continue. From whom that minister received his information, no gentleman, acquainted with the history of that transaction, can doubt. He who deliberately wields the "mischief-meditating" hand of civil commotion, will seldom hesitate as to the means which he employs to accomplish a favorite object. The mind, which once resolves on political parricide, can never be restored to a sense of moral virtue and integrity. And wretched, indeed, would be the fate of this country, were its destinies committed to those who openly avow that intention. The notorious conspiracy of Aaron Burr had for its basis the detestable project of dismembering the union. And what, sir, was the fate of that infatuated individual? Exiled from his native country, in which he once held a distinguished place, not only in the administration of its government, but also in the affections of the people; a beggar in Paris, and a fit instrument to be used by foreign courts to bring distress and ruin on the country, from which his crimes have expelled him. And yet that man did not dare to go the lengths which the gentleman from Massachusetts has been permitted to go within these walls. Did Aaron Burr, in all the ramifications of his treasonable projects ever declare to an assembly of citizens, that the states were free from their moral