without authority of law, and because the sending of troops into Texas, then a distinct and independent government, was the unauthorized act of the President alone. Mr. M'Ilvaine was the first member of the House who openly resisted this appropriation for the military occupation of Texas-the incipient step in the war with Mexico and, as he conceived, the proper occasion for arresting what he regarded as the high-handed assumption of power on the part of the President. In the course of his remarks, he addressed himself particularly to that class of members who advocate a literal interpretation of the Constitution. "We may be told," said he, "by the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, that the money which you are about to appropriate has been already expended; that 'the faith of the government is pledged,' as in the case of the Indian Bill. Sir, I acknowledge no such obligation. The powers of the President are delegated, specific; and if he transcend the charter of his power-the Constitution-he acts without authority, and pledges no faith. The agent can bind the principal to the extent of his delegated power, and no further; and the moment he goes beyond that, he acts by his own will-imposes no obligation, and pledges no responsibility but his own. If the pow ers of the President be unlimited in this respect, where is the end of his power-where are the liberties of the people?

"The Constitution has placed the purse-strings of the people in the hands of their representatives. 'No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law.' What does this mean? Does it imply discretionary power in Congress to judge of the merits of appropriations which it is called upon to make, or a positive obligation to meet all expenditures which the President may choose to make in advance? Does not the latter construction completely annihilate that wise and wholesome provision of the Constitution, remove all checks from the President, and place the treasure of the nation under his unlimited control? Does it not emphatically unite the purse and the sword?

"Where are the trusty sentinels now, who watch with so much jealousy the accumulation of power in the executive head? Where are the strict constructionists, who can not find power in the Constitution to improve your harbors, clear out your rivers, and protect the labor of the country? Can they con

sent to this unwarrantable assumption of power-this reckless disregard of constitutional obligations? Sir, I protest against this unnecessary, unjust, unconstitutional expenditure of the people's money, in the name of the freemen whom I here represent; I protest against it in the name of humanity and justice; I protest against it in the name of the Constitution. And I warn gentlemen, that in the present progress of public opinion in the North, growing out of this Texas outrage, every attempt which they make to impose upon us new burdens for the support of slavery, to the prejudice of our own interests, knocks another stone from its foundation."

With equal resolution he has opposed appropriations for the "prosecution" of the war against Mexico. He declined to vote on the declaratory act of the 13th of May. In a speech delivered on the 18th of June, 1846, in which he adverts to that fact, he is thus reported:

"He washed his hands of this war. It was a war unnecessarily and unjustly forced upon the country by the President, without authority of law, and in violation of the Constitution, which gives to Congress alone the power to make war. He had abused the power vested in him to repel invasion' by the invasion of the territory of a foreign power, which had always been, and admitted by him to be, in the occupation and under the control of that power, and had undertaken to define by the sword a question of boundary which Congress had declared should be determined by negotiation. He [Mr. M.] did not vote for the war bill, because it declared war to exist by the act of Mexico, which was grossly and glaringly false; and because he did not consider a declaration of war, with its distinctive tendencies upon the commerce and business of the country, necessary to the defense of our territory. He would have voted for the supplies, and did so vote in Committee of the Whole, to the full extent asked for; not for the purpose of carrying the war into Mexico, or effecting the conquest of that country, but to relieve and sustain our gallant little army from what appeared to be imminent danger, and for the defense of the country. But he could not vote for the bill, objectionable and false as he knew a part of it to be, without an opportunity being allowed for consideration or debate, and designed, as he believed it was, to embarrass a portion of the members of that House with whom

he had the honor to act. He did not vote against it, because he did not wish to offer any impediment to the granting of men and money, which, by the act of the President, appeared to be necessary. He therefore declined voting altogether."

During the following session, on the 4th of February, 1847, he avowed his intention to vote against all measures for the further prosecution of the war. He thus states his reasons:

"The remote cause of the war, then, was the annexation of Texas; the immediate, the military occupation, by our arms, of territory in dispute between the two governments, but in the possession of Mexico.

"The act of May last declares that war exists between this government and Mexico, but throws upon Mexico the onus of its commencement. The charge is as false in fact, and unjust to Mexico, as it is disingenuous and cowardly in its authors. It was a vile attempt to cover up the grossest act of usurpation and aggression by the President known to the history of the country, and to mislead and inflame the public mind upon the momentous question of war with a neighboring sister, but weak and distracted, republic. It is a charge in the face of the settled public opinion of the country and of the whole civilized world. The burden of the commencement of this war lies at the door of your President. Deny it as you will; reiterate and again reiterate the false charge against Mexico, the fact remains unaltered and unalterable.

"But the war exists; and ample means for its vigorous prosecution were placed in the hands of the President by the act of May. If it has not been prosecuted with sufficient vigor, it has not been for want of means. I here find myself called upon, in common with every member upon this floor, to take a stand for or against its further prosecution.

"In arriving at a conclusion of what duty requires of me in this crisis, I shall be governed by two things, the necessity and object of the war. And here I will remark, with the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Winthrop], who addressed the committee some time ago, that I am not one of those, if any there be, who would, under all circumstances, withhold supplies for the prosecution of an existing war. So long as the nations of the earth continue the barbarous practice of warring against each other, force must be repelled by force. And al

though I deprecate a war as one of the greatest calamities which can befall a nation, and however much I might deplore any act of my country which would justify any civilized nation in the face of the world in waging war upon it, yet I shall at all times, and under all circumstances, be ready to defend my country, to the last man and the last dollar necessary, against the attack of an enemy. Does such a case exist? Is the prosecution of this war necessary for the defense of the country? No one pretends that it is.

"Although Mexico has uniformly claimed sovereignty over Texas, and declared her intention, at different times, to restore it to her confederacy, yet all her acts and intercourse with this government show conclusively that it was her intention and desire to negotiate with a view to its final relinquishment; and nothing but the obstinacy of the President, and a determination to seize upon the desired territory between the Nueces and the Rio Grande, rather than submit it to the equitable and constitutional test of negotiation, prevented an amicable arrangement. He chose to rely upon might rather than right, and thus involved the country in a bloody and protracted war.

"Mexico demanded that, antecedent to negotiation, the American fleet should be withdrawn from her coast, that no appearance of menace should overhang her friendly resolves— not that the army should be withdrawn from Texas. It was not, then, for Texas that Mexico was contending, but the extent of Texas and its equivalent.

"Had the army of occupation remained at Corpus Christi, although a state of war might and would have existed between the two countries until amicable relations should be restored by negotiation, no hostilities would have occurred. The President was so advised. He was repeatedly informed by General Taylor, through his dispatches, of the tranquillity upon the Mexican frontier, and the friendly intercourse between the people of Mexico and those of Texas. He was further informed of the pacific intentions of Mexico, and her determination not to cross the Rio Grande with any military force, except small parties, for the purpose of 'preventing Indian depredations and illicit trade.'

"Isaac D. Marks, Esq., formerly United States consul at Matamoros, in a letter to General Taylor, dated at China, in VOL. I.-Q

Mexico, September 23, 1845, and inclosed to the Secretary of State on the 28th of October following, says: "I have the honor to inform you that I have had several conferences at Monterey with General Mariano Arista, commander-in-chief of the Mexican forces on the frontier of the Rio Grande, in relation to the differences at present existing between the United States and Mexico, and am pleased to state to you that, from the opinion and views he made known to me, the cabinet of Mexico is disposed to enter into an amicable arrangement with the United States in relation to the boundary, and all other momentous questions.

*

"General Arista pledged his honor to me that no large body of Mexican troops should cross the left bank of the Rio Grande; that only small parties, not to exceed two hundred men, should be permitted to go as far as the Arroyo Colorado (twenty leagues from the Rio Grande), and that they would be strictly ordered only to prevent Indian depredations and illicit trade.

*

"General Arista spoke, also, of Indian incursions on the frontier of the Rio Grande, and is under the impression that they could be prevented by the troops under your command, as the Indians always come from the Nueces River.'

"Here is not only a declaration of the friendly disposition of Mexico, but the acquiescence of the Mexican general in the jurisdiction of this government upon the Nueces. But the President had determined to make the line of the Rio Grande an ultimatum' in settling the question of boundary with Mexico, and General Taylor was accordingly ordered to take a position upon the bank of that river.

"Well, sir, what followed? The Mexican general commanding at Matamoros notified General Taylor, upon his arrival there, that the march of the United States troops through part of the Mexican territory [Tamaulipas] was considered as an act of war,' and he was summoned to fall back beyond the River Nueces, not the Sabine. He was required to retire within the borders of Texas, not beyond them.

"Does this look like an intention to invade our territory? for I admit that the President was as firmly bound to defend

the territory properly within, and rightfully belonging to, Tex

s' as any other state of the Union, for it had been brought