FEB. 17, 1831.] The Judiciary. [H. OF R. dependent on the consent of the party for the exercise of the Government are specified and defined by the constitu its jurisdiction. I repeat that this is a most extraordinary tion; the mode of their exercise is, in many instances, provision, and, so far as I am informed, without a prece- prescribed by statute. If the twenty-fifth section of the dent: certainly the country from which we derive most of judiciary act had merely pointed out the manner in which our principles of jurisprudence furnishes no similar pro-appeals should be taken to the Supreme Court, there could ceedings, and I am not aware that there are any in any of be no objection to it-it would then only have been nethe States where they have courts of different grades, cessary to turn to the constitution, and ascertain to what possessing, in many instances, concurrent jurisdiction. I cases, and from what tribunal, this right applies. But our will not say that the law giving this privilege of removing objection is, that, by this section, powers are conferred a cause from the State to the United States' courts, is on the Supreme Court, not authorized by the constitution, contrary to the constitution; but I cannot believe that and alarming to the rights of the State courts, and to the such a proceeding was contemplated by the framers of sovereignty of the States. that instrument. I have referred to these different sec- The first argument which I would urge, (and to my mind tions of the judiciary act, sir, for the purpose of showing it is perfectly conclusive,) to show that the constitution how much is wanting of that perfection which is imputed does not give the Supreme Court the right to review and to it, and to lessen that sanctity which is attempted to be decide upon the judgments of the State courts, is, that thrown round it. I now proceed to the consideration of that power is not specified in the constitution itself. The the section more immediately in question-that section powers of the Federal Government are divided into three which gives to the Supreme Court its omnipotent powers. departments, legislative, executive, and judicial. The The twenty-fifth section of the act referred to declares powers assigned to each are specified and defined-and that "a final judgment or decree in any suit in the highest to none of the departments more particularly than to the court of law or equity of a State in which a decision in judicial. Very extensive (and I will add alarming) powers the suit could be had, where is drawn in question the va- are given to it; yet they are specifically enumerated. The lidity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised agents, too, by whom these powers are to be administered, under, the United States, and the decision is against their are pointed out--by "one Supreme Court, and such infevalidity; or where is drawn in question the validity of a rior courts as Congress may, from time to time, ordain statute of, or an authority exercised under, any State, on and establish." the ground of their being repugnant to the constitution, trea- Let it be remembered that, throughout the constitution, ties, or laws of the United States, and the decision is in fa- there is not the slightest connexion indicated between any vor of such their validity," &c., "may be re-examined, and of the departments of the Federal with similar departments reversed or affirmed, in the Supreme Court of the United of the State Governments. No such connexion was inStates upon a writ of error," &c. The first idea that sug-tended, and, least of all, a supervisory power over any gests itself to the mind, in reading this section, is, the dis- departments of the State Governments, acting within the tinction made between the parties to the suit, in allowing sphere of their retained sovereignty. Have gentlemen an appeal. An action is brought in a State court; the de- forgotten the proposition made in the federal convention fendant sets up, in his defence, a treaty, or the constitution, to vest Congress with the power to negative the laws of or a law of the United States. If there be a right of ap- the State Legislatures? And can there be a doubt that peal to the Supreme Court from the decision which may an effort to give the federal judiciary the power to revise be made, it must be derived from that clause of the con- and reverse the judgments of the State courts would have stitution conferring on the Supreme Court its appellate shared the same fate? Sir, the jealousy and apprehenpowers; but that clause extends the power to "all cases sions entertained by the friends of the rights of the States, in law or equity, arising under the constitution, the laws at the powers proposed to be given to the General Goof the United States, and treaties made under their au-vernment, are matters of history, and how well founded thority;" whereas this twenty-fifth section confines it to they were, let history answer. cases where the decision shall be against the validity of But, sir, there is another reason, which is very satisfacthe treaty, constitution, &c. The case, then, so far as re- tory to me that this right of appeal from a State to the gards the Supreme Court, arises under the decision of the United States' court was not understood, at the formation State court, and not under the constitution or treaty. of the constitution, to have been given; and that is, that, in The party who sets up this defence has a double advan- the debates of the State conventions on the ratification of tage: if his plea is overruled, he appeals to the Supreme the constitution, there is no reference to this power. Had Court, where the decision may be reversed; but, if it is sus- such been the understanding, the clause supposed to contained, his adversary has no resort-the judgment of the fer it could not have passed unnoticed. What, sir, a State court is final. Is there not manifest inequality and clause which has the tendency, not only to prostrate the injustice here? And will gentlemen tell us by what forced dignity of State courts, but to humble the sovereignty of construction of the constitution (that convenient auxiliary State Governments, at the foot of this august tribunal, not of the advocates for power) they establish the right of to have elicited even a passing remark! When every part Congress thus to discriminate between individuals prose of the constitution was so scrutinized, and almost every cuting their rights in our courts of justice? Sir, this is the law power proposed to be conferred so zealously resisted by on which, we are gravely told, the union of these States those jealous advocates of State rights in the Virginia condepends the provisions of which are so perfect, and its vention, can it be believed that this overshadowing, this character so sacred, that, in the opinion of the honorable omnipotent power, would have excited no apprehension? gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. CRAWFORD,] even to Sir, if the keen and eagle eye of Patrick Henry had but touch it is profanity! detected it lurking under those terms, "appellate jurisI come now, said Mr. F., to the principal, and much diction"-had he imagined that it referred to appeals from the most important, feature of this celebrated section-State courts, he would have exposed and denounced it-the power it confers on the Supreme Court to re-examine and in that glowing and powerful eloquence which was so and reverse the judgments of the State courts. And here, peculiarly his own, he would have warned his country men sir, the simply inquiry is, whether this power is given by of "the chains that were forging for them." the constitution. For, if it is not, it will not be contended But, said Mr. F., I have some other evidence, of rather that it can be conferred by statute. On the contrary, if a more direct and positive character; and to this I partithe constitution does give the power, a repeal of this sec-cularly ask the attention of the gentlemen from New York. tion would not prevent the exercise of it by the court. The convention of that State which ratified the federal The powers and duties of the different departments of constitution proposed a number of amendments, and among H. OF R.] The Judiciary. [FEB. 17, 1831. them was the following: "That the Congress shall not acting within the sphere of the sovereignty retained by constitute, ordain, or establish any tribunals of inferior the States, as subordinate to no power whatever, I never courts with any other than appellate jurisdiction, except can consent to see them thus degraded in rank, and shorn such as may be necessary for the trial of causes of admi- of their rights. ralty and maritime jurisdiction, and for the trial of pira- There are some other clauses of the constitution concies and felonies committed on the high seas; and in all ferring jurisdiction on the Supreme Court, the meaning other cases to which the judicial power of the United States and extent of which I will take this occasion to examine, extends, and in which the Supreme Court of the United as they are intimately connected with the subject of this States has not original jurisdiction, the causes shall be investigation. I am the more gratified at having the opheard, tried, and determined in some one of the State portunity to do so, because it will enable me to enter into courts, with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the defence of certain principles which have long been the United States, or other proper tribunal, to be esta- maintained by the State of which I am an unworthy reblished for that purpose by the Congress, with such excep- presentative; principles which she holds most sacred, and tions, and under such regulations, as the Congress shall which she will not tamely yield. But I will not fatigue make." Now, sir, can we have any doubt of the opinion the House with an argument of my own. No, sir, I will entertained by this convention as to the appellate power not rely on my own feeble arm, when I have weapons so conferred on the Supreme Court by the constitution? much more powerful and effective within my reach. Sir, Will gentlemen believe that that convention of sages would when I present the recorded opinions and expositions of have gravely proposed to amend the constitution so as to James Madison and John Marshall, I know they must com confer powers already granted? Sir, no man can believe mand the respect of this House; and it is a source of no it. They conceived, as the majority of the Judiciary com- little pride and gratification, that most of the prominent mittee now allege, that this constitution did not give this principles for which Georgia has contended, in her conright of appeal; and, for the expression of this opinion, we troversies with the General Government, are amply suphave been denounced in unmeasured terms. Sir, gentle- ported by the opinions of these distinguished men. men must pardon me when I tell them they have not examined this question; they have been alarmed by the clamor which was raised, and were afraid to suffer even a discussion of the subject, lest they too should be classed with the nullifiers, traitors, and disunionists. The first clause of the constitution, to which I refer, is that which gives to the Supreme Court jurisdiction in "controversies between a State and citizens of another State." Now, let us hear the reason why this power was conferred. I give it in the words of Mr. Madison, and [Here Mr. FOSTER's remarks were suspended, by the particularly invite the attention of gentlemen who place expiration of the hour allotted to the consideration of re- so much reliance on the exposition of the constitution solutions.] made cotemporaneously with its formation. I read from On a subsequent morning, Mr. F. resumed his argu- Mr. Madison's speech in the Virginia convention, in reply ment, by correcting a mistake which he had made when to gentlemen who were vehemently opposed to the ratinhe previously addressed the House. In reference to the cation of the constitution: "Its (the federal court's) jurisprovision of removing certain cases from the State courts diction in controversies between a State and citizens of to the United States' circuit court, previous to any judg-another State," says the gentleman, "is much objected ment being rendered, I stated, said Mr. F., that I believ- to, and perhaps without reason. It is not in the power of ed this was a provision perfectly anomalous; that there individuals to call any State into court. The only opera was no precedent for it in England, nor in any of the tion it can have, is, that, if a State should wish to bring suit States. I have since understood that in some of the States against a citizen, it must be brought before the federal cases may be transferred from the court in which they court. It appears to me that this can have no operation were commenced to one of a higher grade. I make this but this, to give a citizen a right to be heard in the fedecorrection, because I do not wish to found an argument on ral courts; and, if a State should condescend to be a party, any erroneous assumption of facts. There is, however, this court may take cognizance of it." a wide difference between removing cases from one court to another of the same State, and a removal from a State court, clothed, by the constitution of its own State, with power to hear, and finally determine, the cause, to a court of the United States. Between the former, by the constitution of the State, there is a direct connexion; not so with the latter. And although it was competent to the framers of the constitution to have given this right of removing a case from the State to the United States' court, I cannot conceive that that right is fairly inferrible from the constitution as it now stands. But if this right does exist, and if Congress may now, by law, provide for its exercise, it furnishes one of the strongest arguments against the right of appeal from the judgment of a State court. For if a party, on being sued in a State court, may remove the cause to a federal court, and does not choose to avail himself of his privilege, he cannot complain of the judgment which may be rendered; he has voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the State court, and should, therefore, be bound to abide the decision. The plaintiff having selected the tribunal to adjudicate his rights, would have still less cause of complaint if that decision should be against him. What says Mr. Marshall on the same subject? With respect to disputes between a State and citizens of another State, its (the federal court's) jurisdiction has been decried with unusual vehemence. I hope no gentleman will think that a State will be called at the bar of the federal court. Is there no such case at present? Are there not many cases in which the Legislature of Virginia is a party? And yet the State is not sued. It is not rational to suppose that the sovereign power shall be dragged before a court. The intent is, to enable States to recover claims of individuals residing in other States. I contend this construction is warranted by the words. they, (gentlemen who had objected to this power,) there will be partiality in it, if a State cannot be defendant-it an individual cannot proceed to obtain judgment against a State, though he may be sued by a State." What is Mr. Marshall's reply to this objection? "It is necessary to be so, and cannot be avoided. I see a difficulty in making a State defendant, which does not prevent its being mad plaintiff." Sir, I make no comments on these exposition of federal court powers-they are too plain to require any But, say The opinions and arguments from which these extract have been read, were delivered in the year 1783. Wh The disrespect shown to the dignity of State courts, by that heard them, Mr. Speaker, would have believed that subjecting their judgments to revisal by the Supreme in less than five years, a suit would have been instituted Court, is a matter of little importance to those who regard in the Supreme Court of the United States, by an indivi them as inferior or subordinate to the federal tribunals; dual, against one of the States, and that the jurisdiction but, sir, regarding, as I do, the State institutions, while would have been maintained by the court? Yet, sir, thi FEB. 17, 1831.] was done in several instances; and one of the States against gentlemen from New York is again most specially invited. which suit was thus brought, was Georgia! that State I have already stated that when the convention of that which seems doomed to be the subject of General Go-State ratified the federal constitution, they proposed vernment experiments. And what course did Georgia several amendments, which they urged should be adopted. pursue? Did she quietly submit to be "dragged before They also prefixed to their assent to the ratification a the court?" Did she, in the language of Mr. Madison, declaration of certain rights and principles which they "condescend to be a party" to this suit? No, sir. She conceived were not affected by the constitution, and then acted then as she has on a more recent occasion. She added: Under these impressions, and declaring that the considered the summons "to the bar of the Federal (Su-rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that preme) Court" as an attack on her sovereignty; and she the explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said disregarded it, and resolved to protect herself against any constitution," &c. "We, the said delegates, do assent judgment that might be rendered against her. And what to and ratify the said constitution." Now, sir, one of was the consequence of her firmness on that occasion? these "explanations consistent with the constitution" is Although, perhaps, censured and abused for a time, as in these words: "That the judicial power of the United usual, she very soon after had the satisfaction of seeing States, in cases in which a State may be a party, does not her principles recognised by her sister States, as was extend to criminal prosecutions, or to authorize any suit clearly indicated by an amendment to the constitution, ex-by any person against a State." Mr. Speaker, it is a pressly providing that the judicial power of the United well established principle of the common law, as well as States should not be construed to extend to any suit in the plain dictate of common sense, that a contract is to be law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of construed as understood by the parties to it at the time it the United States by citizens of another State, or by citi-was made. The constitution is a contract between the zens or subjects of any foreign State. different States of this Union. New York was a party, But there is another branch of jurisdiction which is and a very important party, to this contract; and she reclaimed for the Supreme Court, under the constitution, solved to leave no uncertainty as to her understanding of but more especially under the twenty-fifth section of the it, or of the obligations she was about to assume. Sir, it judiciary act, and which has been, very recently, abso- would really seem as if the members of that convention lutely denied by the public authorities of the State of looked forward with a prophetic eye to the disposition of Georgia. And that is, the right of the Supreme Court, this Government to acquire, by the aid of construction, under its appellate power, to review and determine on powers not delegated to it, and that they determined to the judgment of a State court in a criminal prosecution, plant round it as many guards as possible against these in which the State is a party. Sir, the view taken of this dangerous encroachments. And when, among the dissubject by Mr. Madison, in the celebrated Virginia report tinguished names of which that convention was composed, of '99, is so clear and conclusive, that I cannot deny my- we find those of Jay, Clinton, Hamilton, Morris, Livself the pleasure of reading it to the House: "The ex-ingston, and many others, the construction which they pression cases in law and equity' (in the constitution) is placed on the constitution is entitled to the highest remanifestly confined to cases of a civil nature; and would spect. exclude cases of criminal jurisdiction: criminal cases in law and equity would be a language unknown to the law." "The succeeding paragraph of the same section," continues the report, "is in harmony" with this construction. It is in these words: "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases, (including cases in law and equity arising under the constitution,) the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as Congress shall make. This paragraph, by expressly giving an appellate jurisdiction in cases of law and equity arising under the constitution, to fact as well as to To this opinion, I beg leave to add that of Mr. John law, clearly excludes criminal cases, where the trial by Marshall, on the same occasion. In reply to Mr. George jury is secured, because the fact in such cases is not a sub-Mason, Mr. Marshall says "He (Mr. Mason) objects to ject of appeal." "Once more" (the report adds) "the amendment last added to the constitution deserves attention, as throwing light on this subject. The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign Power. As it will not be pretended that any criminal proceeding could take place against a State, the terms law or equity must be under stood as appropriate to civil, in exclusion of criminal cases." There is only one more clause of the constitution, with which I intend to trouble the House; it is that which extends the power of the Supreme Court to "controversies between a State and foreign States." Let us inquire of Mr. Madison what is the intent and extent of this jurisdic tion: "The next case (says this gentleman in the Virginia convention) provides for disputes between a foreign State and one of our States, should such a case ever arise; and between a citizen, and a foreign citizen, or subject. I do not conceive that any controversy can ever be decided in these courts, between an American and a foreign State, without the consent of the parties. If they consent, provision is here made." its (the federal court's) jurisdiction in controversies between a State and a foreign State. Suppose, says he, in such a suit a foreign State is cast, will she be bound by the decision? If a foreign State brought a suit against the commonwealth of Virginia, would she not be barred from the claim, if the federal judiciary thought it unjust? The previous consent of the parties is necessary." Thus we see these two gentlemen concurring in the opinion, that to enable the Supreme Court to exercise this jurisdiction, the consent of the parties, the States, is indispensable. To show more clearly the absurdity of this doctrine, Such, sir, are the sentiments and reasoning of this great that a foreign State may bring one of these States into the statesman on this point. What consideration they may be Supreme Court, permit me, Mr. Speaker, to present a entitled to, is submitted to the judgment of the House. single case, as an illustration. There has recently been As, however, his opinions on other subjects are so much a dispute between the State of Maine and the province of sought after of late, and so much admired, I trust they New Brunswick. Instead, then, of settling it by nego will not be without their weight on this. But, Mr. Speaker, I have another authority, bearing so directly on this point, that it must not be passed over unnoticed and to which the serious attention of the VOL. VII.-47 tiation between the two Governments, suppose Great Britain had brought an actionin the Supreme Court against Maine, for the disputed territory. Sr, it would have been the standing jest of the day; it would have been tou H. OF R.] Revolutionary Pensions. [FEB. 17, 1831. REVOLUTIONARY PENSIONS. The engrossed bill making further provision for the surviving officers and soldiers, militia, State troops, and volunteers, of the revolutionary service, was read a third time, and the question stated on its passage. ludicrous for grave judicial consideration. Yet, a people of that section of our judiciary act which confers upon residing within the limits of the State of Georgia, who, your Supreme Court such unlimited powers. some four or five years ago, declared themselves inde- As to the resolution immediately under consideration, I pendent, have, as rumor informs us, instituted suit in the have only to say, in conclusion, that, as the majority and Supreme Court, as a foreign nation, against that State-minority of the committee differed so widely in their and that, too, under the advice of distinguished counsel. views of the question presented to them, it is both right That such a case will be sustained, I cannot believe. and proper that the people at large should see the reaGeorgia has not only given no consent to have the case soning by which they have arrived at conclusions so adjudicated by the court, but she will not feel herself entirely opposite. After the imputations which have been bound by any judgment that may be awarded. cast upon the majority, we consider it a matter of strict Mr. Speaker, I have spoken of the powers of the Su- justice that their views should be published, and let an preme Court, particularly as specified in the twenty-fifth unprejudiced world determine whether we have indeed section of the judiciary act, as being vast and alarming. I been plotting treason in the very bosom of our national concur most sincerely with the opinion expressed by my councils. worthy friend from Connecticut, [Mr. HUNTINGTON,] at the last session of Congress, that, "in comparison with the judiciary, all the other departments of this Government are weak and powerless." But, sir, when the gentleman added, that it controlled even sovereignty itself, by pointing it to the clause which says "thus far shalt thou go, and no farther," I confess I did not correctly un- Mr. TREZVANT rose, and said he was aware of the derstand the import of his language. Little, indeed, did great majority by which this bill had been ordered to be I dream how soon we should have a demonstration of this engrossed yesterday, and he knew he was presenting omnipotence, and that my devoted State was, as usual, to himself in an unenviable position by interposing any obbe the subject. stacles to its immediate passage; yet, contemplating the Sir, I have already had occasion to speak of the repeat-effects which it must produce upon the financial operations ed conflicts of the State of Georgia with this Government. of the Government, he felt constrained, by a sense of She has, indeed, had her days of darkness and of trial-duty, to throw himself, for a short time, upon the cour sometimes standing almost alone, and breasting the almost tesy of the House. He said, that by the provisions of this overwhelming torrent of public opinion. But she re- bill, if it should become a law, we are about to place upon mained firm and unmoved; and when the storm has passed the roll of pensioners every individual, without regard to over, when the excitement has subsided, she has had the the character in which he might have served in the revo proud satisfaction to see her principles recognised, and to lutionary war; no matter whether rich or poor, if his hear her course approved. She still acts upon the same service was of six months' duration. Not content with the principles-she still pursues the same straightforward bountiful liberality already extended to the brave and course; and, in her present difficulties, she confidently gallant men who were engaged in most of the hard-fought anticipates the same result. She only carries into practical battles in that eventful war, which terminated in esta operation the doctrines so clearly laid down, and so ably blishing our independence, we are now called upon to maintained, by Madison and Marshall; these are the adopt a measure that will embrace within the scope of its "burning and shining lights" which illuminate her path, bounty all who survive, and which must necessarily inand guide her course; and it is for an intelligent and im-crease the number of pensioners to an unknown extent, partial public to say whether, for thus acting, she should and create demands upon the treasury, that will absorb a be placed under the ban, and devoted to destruction. large proportion of your current revenue. Is the list of Mr. Speaker, it would be gross affectation if I were to pensioners not sufficiently swelled under the existing laws, speak of the distinguished individuals who adorn the that we must dispense with the prudent limitations imposed bench of the Supreme Court in any other terms than those upon the bounty of the Government, and invite multiof the most profound respect. But the reverence which tudes who are not claiming it as a right, or even asking it is so generally entertained for the characters of the judges as a favor, to partake of a liberality almost without bounds, excites some of the greatest apprehensions as to the and certainly unprecedented? dangers likely to grow out of the powers of the court. At present, Mr. Speaker, a pension cannot be obtained Sir, let us remember not only that these judges are fallible, unless the applicant is in necessitous circumstances; and but that they are not immortal. That splendid orb which he is held to strict proof of the time of service, which has been so long the centre of this system-which in its must be, at the least, nine months; and required to meridian shone with such bright effulgence, and which furnish, under oath, a schedule of his property. Notwithpreserves such mild and steady lustre in its evening hours, standing these wise and salutary restrictions, intended to is fast verging to the horizon, and must soon set. Its confine the benefits of your pension system to those who distinguished secondaries, in the revolutions of years, must really stand in need of the assistance of their country, also finish their course-and who can foresee the charac- and to guard your treasury against frauds-not less than ter of their successors? With the same powers, and between eleven and twelve thousand are at this time in without the same purity of purpose to direct them, who the enjoyment of your bounty, requiring, I think, an can tell what mischiefs they may not commit? Against annual expenditure of between twelve and fifteen hundred these dangers it is our duty to guard. We cannot too thousand dollars. From this data a probable conjecture cautiously and securely provide against the exercise of might be formed as to the effects of this bill, should it arbitrary power. No policy is more unwise and unsafe, pass, in increasing the number of pensioners, and the anthan that of confiding powers with reference to the indi-nual expenditure to be made for the payment of their vidual by whom they are to be exercised--no matter how pensions. The pure and elevated the character of that individual may Mr. T. said that he did not know what was the numbe. Sir, it was for the purpose of providing against ber of soldiers engaged in the revolutionary war. future danger, and with the hope of checking an evil number, however, must have been very great, if the mili which is constantly increasing, and which threatens the tia, as well as those in the continental line, are included peace and harmony of our country-the interference of in the estimate. The war was waged for seven years, ard federal with State authorities--that the majority of the was actively prosecuted from one extremity of the Union Judiciary committee were induced to recommend a repeal to the other. No part of the seaboard escaped its rava H. OF R.] Revolutionary Pensions. [FEB. 17, 1831. ges, and the militia, in aid of the regular forces, were cutive that the revenue of the Government was equal to frequently called out in all the States, and but few per- the payment of this debt as early as the year 1834, or 1835 formed a service for a shorter period than six months. It at furthest. The people have been told so for the last cannot be doubted that there are many thousands, scatter-two or three years, and they are most anxiously looked over all parts of the United States, who will be entitled ing forward to this desirable period. They expect, then, to the benefits contemplated by this bill, and will avail to be relieved from that weight of taxes by which they themselves of its provisions. It is impossible to speak have been so grievously oppressed, especially since the with absolute accuracy upon this subject, but the num- year 1828. In this country, as in all others, the people ber of pensioners now on the roll furnishes a rule that will look to the degree of taxation they are exposed to, as enable us to approximate sufficiently near the truth to in-one of the best evidences of the wisdom or folly, the duce gentlemen to hesitate before they proceed further goodness or badness, of the Government under which they in this ruinous policy. live, and of those who administer its affairs. When their At present it should be remembered, that, with the ex-industry is least trammelled by unnecessary burdens, and ception of those who were provided for in the act of 1828- they are left free to enjoy the fruits of their labor with the '9, none but the indigent, who have served continuously least possible interference on the part of the Government, nine months in the continental line, are entitled to the they are not often inclined to complain of the acts of the benefits of the pension acts. The possession of more than Government; but under a state of taxation which is felt to three hundred dollars worth of property excludes the be oppressive, and promises to be perpetual, they will comsoldier from this bounty. With these restrictions, it has plain, and their complaints must ultimately be respected. been stated that the number at present upon the pension With a view to avert the evils he apprehended would list amounts to between eleven and twelve thousand. It flow from the bill if it passed in its present form, Mr. T. cannot be reasonably supposed that one-third of the sur- submitted the following motion: vivors of that band of patriots, who knew so well how to "That the said bill be recommitted to the Committee estimate the value of liberty, and encountered such fear-of Ways and Means, with instructions to inquire and reful perils to secure its possession to themselves and their port to the House the amount which will probably be prosperity, have been so regardless of their comfort and required annually to carry its provisions into effect, and independence as, after a lapse of fifty years, uninterrupt- the amount which probably would be annually required edly devoted to the improvement of their fortunes, to be to carry the said bill into effect, provided its provisions found at this day in the possession of less than three hun- were restricted to those only who are in such reduced cirdred dollars worth of property. Admit, however, that cumstances in life as to stand in need of assistance of one-third of these men, either by misfortune or improvi- the country for support; and further to inquire and redence, have been reduced to this condition. Remove the port whether the amount which may be required to carry restrictions at present imposed, and from the ranks of the the provisions of the said bill into effect can be drawn continental line alone you will have a list of pensioners from the treasury without invading the sinking fund, and amounting to between thirty and thirty-six thousand. The thereby postponing the payment of the public debt." relative proportion of militia and continental troops can- Heretofore, said Mr. T., the policy of this Government not be ascertained with precision; but the history of those had been to confine the benefits of the pension law to those times, and the recollection of those who witnessed the who had been disabled in the military and naval service of scenes of that period, and yet live, will bear me out in say-the country, and to those who had served in the revolutioning that the militia engaged in the revolutionary struggle, ary war, and were reduced to a state of indigence and at different times from its commencement to its termina- want. Now, it is proposed to go beyond this policy, and tion, greatly exceeded the number of regular or conti- to lay the foundation of a splendid pension system. All nental troops. If they were only equal in number, it is who participated in the war of the revolution, no matter clearly shown that, by the passage of this bill, you will in- what their merits may be, are invited to come forward crease the list of pensioners from between eleven and and throw themselves upon the charity and beneficence of twelve thousand, to between sixty and eighty thousand. the Government--a sumptuous banquet is to be spread, and With this view of the facts, an opinion may be hazarded, the country is to be ransacked to gather together multithat, to maintain your pensioners, the sum required annu-tudes to riot and revel at the feast. It is not in human naally, instead of being, as at present, between twelve and fif- ture to resist an invitation so strongly appealing to its cuteen hundred thousand dollars, will between six and ten pidity and avarice. All who remain, of the regular army 1 millions of dollars, Admit, Mr. Speaker, that the smallest or militia of the war of the revolution, will be quartered of the last mentioned sums will be required annually to upon your treasury. meet the expenditures to be incurred by the adoption of this Mr. T. said that he knew that much had been said, in measure, where is it to come from? Your treasury may be and out of the House, of the meritorious services of the in a healthful state. It is no doubt prepared to meet ex-revolutionary patriots, and of the debt of gratitude which pected and ordinary demands, but it is not so redundant the country owed them. No one was more ready than he as to be able to meet one so unexpected, and of such an was to award to them that meed of praise to which they extraordinary character. Mr. Speaker, we have yet a were so richly entitled; and he entertained so exalted anheavy and a long standing debt hanging over us, which opinion of the patriotism by which he trusted they were sound policy requires should be paid before this system still animated, that he believed he should go as far as any of of waste and extravagance should be indulged in. We them desired, if he contributed in his station here to exshould be just before we are generous. If this bill should tend relief to such of them as really stood in need of assistbecome a law, how will this debt be discharged? It is ance from their country. If, however, he should be misevident that the sum which will be annually required to taken in this opinion, as his justification, he would say, carry it into effect cannot be supplied from the current that it was a bad rule in legislation to surrender the dicrevenue, unless other appropriations necessary to the or-tates of the judgment, and follow the impulse of the feeldinary current expenses of the Government should be ings. Whenever it was done, the consequences invaridispensed with, or you invade the sinking fund, long since ably proved to be injurious to the people. Mr. T. said established, and sacredly pledged to the payment of the he had no inducement, nor did he feel any desire, to deinterest and principal of the public debt. If you do not impose additional taxes or borrow money, this must be done; and, as a necessary consequence, the payment of the public debt will be postponed. We have been told by the Exe rogate from the well-earned fame of the men who fought and suffered to establish our independence, nor would he throw any obstacles in the way of any measure calculated and intended to afford the comforts necessary to their real |