vert it into an opportunity to extricate themselves from their suicidal conflict, it will shed the brightest luster on the page of our history, the praises and the blessings of the friends of peace, and of the religion of peace, will rest upon our heads, and the vote we give be remembered to our dying day, with a just pride, as the happiest act of our public lives. There is one other topic upon which I propose to address the committee. It must have arrested the notice of every member of this House that the State of MASSACHUSETTS has occupied a frequent place in the debates of the present session, in connection with the circumstances of its late annual election, which seems to have made a great impression on the minds of gentlemen, and to have introduced rather a perplexing element into all political speculations and calculations. Had an opportunity offered, I should have endeavored to explain that election, so far as in my power. But, in the first place, and at this time, I have a word to say in illustration of the good and great name of that Commonwealth, which I have the honor-the highest, in my estimation, to which an American citizen can aspire, because the highest, in the National Government, received directly from the hands of the people-in part to represent on this floor. We do not complain, sir, that our State has been made thus conspicuous. She has always filled a wide space in the annals of America, and we glory in the fact that the incidents of her history always command the marked attentien of the country. If any member of this body, a Representative of the people of another State, had distinctly assailed Massachusetts, my colleagues would have sprung to her defense. But, under the circumstances, I have felt inclined, from time to time, to wait a little longer before discharging a duty which must not be left undone. In our northern homes we have a proverb, not to shovel paths until it is done snowing, and I have been disposed to let all be said that gentlemen, in or out of the State, may seem inclined to say about Massachusetts, before taking the matter in hand. But being on the floor, and my sands not yet run out, I shall attempt the theme of the glorious old Bay State, as we proudly call her-the earliest and the last home of freedom. Let not gentlemen say that it ill becomes me to stand up for Massachusetts, inasmuch as she has included me in a proscription that embraces several millions of our countrymen.. No temporary phase of public sentiment; no popular excitement of the hour; no political prejudice, even if it express itself in a blow aimed at me personally, can estrange my heart from the State where I have found a happy home during a life not now short, and in whose soil rest the ashes of my ancestors, and of my children. I have ever found an enthusiastic satisfaction in illustrating her local annals. Her schools shed upon my grateful opening mind the lights of education, and my mature life has been devoted to her service to the extent of my ability. I have received, at the hands of her people, all the honors I ever dreamed of, and more, I most deeply feel, than I have deserved. The profoundest convictions of my soul require me to condemn and, when the issue shall be distinctly made in a proper spirit, to resist the policy that attempts to reduce one sixth of her population to political subordination and inferiority. But no man has a claim to office, and no one, with the spirit of a freeman, can complain of the results of elections, so far as they affect him individually, I do not complain. On the contrary, I feel particularly prompted to pay homage to Massachusetts at this time. It is more agreeable to my self-respect to vindicate her name now than it would have been when within the reach of her favors. I look upon Massachusetts, Mr. Chairman, as one of the most remarkable instances of social and political development exhibited in the whole range of history, and as such well worthy of being held up to the contemplation of legislators and statesmen here and elsewhere. On a map of the American Union it occupies scarcely a discernible space. In territory it is one of the smallest of our States; there are but three smaller, Connecticut, Delaware, and Rhode Island. But, sir, there are only three States that exceed it in free population, and but five that exceed it in their aggregate population counting the whole number of slaves; and each of these five States is from five to nine times as large, and incomparably more fertile. The soil of Massachusetts is hard and cold, and yields only to patient and incessant labor. Her surface is, for the most part, rough, barren, and sandy. Her only natural exports, and they have but recently been converted into sources of wealth, are granite from her hills and promontories, marble from the Berkshire mountains, rising before our eyes in polished forms of architectural beauty in the wings of this Capitol, and the ice of her lakes, transported as a luxury to tropical regions all around the globe. But intelligent industry and agricultural science, taste and enterprise, are gradually spreading a garden over her surface. The traveler is amazed at the wealth, beauty, and animation of more than three hundred cities and towns crowded within her narrow boundaries. The stir of busy life pervades the scene like the sunshine; nature catches the spirit of happy industry, and the brooks that leap and sparkle down the hills and through the valleys, at every step, turn the wheels of factories, around which thriving villages gather. Scarcely a spot so secluded as not to be adorned by the spectacle of church spires, and vocal with the merry voices of children wending their way to district schools. The aggregate valuation of Massachusetts is surpassed by that of but two States in the Union. Its average valuation far surpasses that of any other State. The aggregate valuation of— New York is............. Pennsylvania.... Massachusetts.. .:$1,080,309,216 .729,144.998 ...573,342,286 The valuation to each inhabitant is as follows:, Massachusetts New York. Pennsylvania... $576 50 .348 80 ..315 08 The population of Massachusetts is far greater to the square mile than of any other State. In 1840, it was 94: in 1850, it was 127. The population of New York to the square mile in 1840, was 51; in 1850, it was 65. The ratio of representation in this House was raised from 70,680 in 1840, to 93,420 in 1850. But Massachusetts gained a member! The area of Massachusetts is enveloped in a net work of railroads, fifty-four in pumber, with an aggregate length of more than 1.450 miles, constructed at a cost of more than $65,000,000, and yielding an average dividend in 1854 of over five per cent. From this hive swarms of emigration have continually poured forth in all directions, and scattered the seed of those virtues which ripen within it. But, perhaps, the greatest triumphs of the genius and prowess of Massachusetts have been upon the sea. The terrors of her stormy bay seem to have had charms for her brave and hardy people, and the ocean depths have yielded harvests denied by her rugged fields and sandy wastes. Her sons are at home everywhere on the mighty deep; and, as from the beginning, so to-day, are bearing back to our shores the wealth of all climes and regions, from all the ports and islands of the globe. In tonnage, New York alone surpasses her. In every branch of foreign commerce we have led the way. Whatever new field of adventure is opened beyond the seas, we are the first to enter. A Massachusetts merchant ship, clearing from the port of Salem, has already, in all probability, furled her sails in the harbors of Japan. When the political economist and philosopher asks an explanation of this extraordinary result, reached in the face of such original, natural, and physical disadvantages, the first answer to be given, is the devoted and constant zeal with which, from the foundation of the colony, the elements and institutions of religion and knowledge have been cherished in churches, colleges, and schools. The next answer is to be found in that system of associated wealth which one of my honorable colleagues brought quite conspicuously to the notice of the House a few days ago. The first ship ever launched in America was the result of a combination of the resources of men of severally small means in the infant Colony of Massachusetts Bay. The introduction of the social element into operations of business has reached its present development in the some four thousand corporations of which my colleague spoke. I most cordially Ho. OF REPS. reciprocate the kind sentiments he uttered towards me. Our friendship has grown up in political opposition; and I am quite sure that no future differences of opinion, or of position, will be allowed to impair it on either side. I regard the business corporations of Massachusetts in a totally different light from my colleague. I believe them to be eminently popular in their nature, and truly democratic in their tendency. They were introduced, in substance, into this country by Hugh Peters, as wise a statesman, as pure a patriot, and as true a republican as ever breathed. His life was devoted to the people, and terminated in a martyrdom to liberty. He first taught the colonists of Massachusetts how the common people, by uniting their humble means in joint stock operations, could enter the lists of enterprise, and run the race of wealth in successful competition with overgrown individual capitalists. The corporations, as they exist at this day under the sanction of modern legislation, are simply a contrivance by which persons of moderate means, acting in combination, can pursue their business with a unity of design and an energy of operation that put them on a level with the proudest millionaire, and, indeed, accomplish results far beyond the reach of any private fortunes. Without such a system, the distance between the rich and poor will widen as a country advances in accumulation. With such a system, every industrious man or woman is able to participate in that accumulation. It places the profits of every form of business in the hands, by placing them within the reach, of the whole people. It is, in truth, precisely because such corporate facilities are within the reach of all who may feel disposed to unite their means in the prosecution of any kind of business that there cannot be any serious, or considerable, or lasting oppression of labor by capital in Massachusetts." I hazard nothing in saying that there is no part of the world where men rise, without patrimony or patronage, by the inherent force of merit and talent, to high positions in society, more surely or more generally than in Massachusetts. My colleague is himself a brilliant iliustration of this truth. It is, indeed, rather an observable circumstance that the constituency that first sent him into public life, and has generously sustained him to this day, is itself the creation of the earliest great association for manufacturing purposes in Massachusetts. A scrutiny of the history of our public men generally, would demonstrate most remarkably the truth of my assertion. There is no part of the world, I am persuaded, where there is less antagonism between capital and labor. They are blended and merged throughout the whole structure of our society. An individual, if industrious, temperate, and prudent, cannot be long a laborer without becoming a capitalist. Who own the capital stock of our manufacturing, banking, railroad, or insurance companies? The overseer in the mill, the conductor in the car, the laborer in the machine shop, the journeyman mechanic, the farmer at his plough, the girl in the factory-every man, woman, or child, who can lay up, or in any way command, a hundred dollars. Savings banks may be considered as covering the first stage of the progress by which labor passes into capital and participates in its profits. There are seventy-three of these institutions in Massachusetts, and an aggregate of deposits of $25,936,857 63. There are one hundred and thirtysix thousand six hundred and fifty-four depositors; to each depositor there is an average of $189 79; ordinary dividend of 4 4-100 per centum; average dividend, 7 23-100; annual expenses of all these institutions, $63,470 85. The results of a prudent economy, guided by enlightened enterprise and stimulated by an honorable sympathy in the pervading spirit of the country, gradually lift labor and industry along the ascending scale of capital, until, at last, a fortune crowns a life of integrity and perseverance with its just reward. And who can complain er regret that such fortunes are accumulated? To whose benefit do they inure? Not of those alone who make them, but of the whole country, during the process of their creation and in their final distribution. It is the custom, the common law, I might almost say the instinct, of a large portion of Massachusetts capitalists, to devote a liberal 33D CONG....2D SESS. The Institutions of Massachusetts-Mr. Upham. coming ages, it will be as classical, and world re- as the world has ever seen. share of their income during life, and of the wealth Samuel Appleton, a native of a New England village, went to Boston, more than half a century ago, as did his kinsman, my colleague, ten years afterwards, and, without patronage, commenced a business which conducted him to an ample fortune. His life was marked by enterprise and integrity, and adorned by hospitality and liberal charities. Wishing to perpetuate his beneficial influence beyond the grave, and to continue forever his benefactions to religious, philanthropic, and scientific objects, he left, by will, $200,000 in the hands of his brother, Hon. Nathan Appleton-well remembered here as an able and efficient member of this body in years gone by, and still living in honor and usefulness in the city he represented on this floorof J. Ingersoll Bowditch, one of the most enlight ened and estimable citizens of Boston, and of my colleague, to be distributed by them to such institutions as they might select. They have executed the grateful trust. Prompted by that spirit of national patriotism pervading the people of Massachusetts, they did not confine themselves to the limits of that State. Forty-five thousand dollars were distributed to various institutions in New Hampshire. Ten thousand dollars were appropriated to a literary institution in Wisconsin, and $10,000 for educational purposes in Liberia. The only other point in which Massachusetts needs to be vindicated against misapprehensions occasioned by her late State election, is in reference to the slavery question. Some gentlemen have gone so far as to interpret that election as a rebuke of our opposition to the Nebraska bill. In refutation of this idea, I will simply observe that an examination of the details of the Massachusetts election of November last, cannot fail to demonstrate that the sentiment of the people of that State is all but unanimous against the act of the last session repealing the Missouri compromise. Indeed, it is, and was then, the judgment of many having the best means of knowing the popular feeling, that it demanded, inexorably, an oppor on that issue; and that the utter overthrow of the In one of the most inveterate Democratic towns | Ho. OF REPS. Sir, there ought not to be any misunderstanding on this subject. The position of Massachusetts is as unequivocal, as fixed, and as unquestionable as that of any State in the Union-as that of South Carolina, for instance. Massachusetts stands to-day where she stood in the revolutionary age. She is as true to freedom-she is as hostile to slavery. In the old Congress, and in the Federal Convention of 1787, Massachusetts and South Carolina occupied on the slavery question the very opposite extremes; but they fought together, shoulder to shoulder, through the war of independence, and the statesmen of that day regarded each other with mutual and peculiar respect and affection. We love the Carolinas still. Massachusetts will be true to the Constitution and the Union. Her people deeply regret the introduction of the slavery question into our national politics, and would rejoice to have that root of bitterness utterly and forever extracted; but under the Constitution, and within the Union, she must be expected to resist all attempts to spread slavery over the continent, and to do her utmost to drive it back from the sphere of this Government, into the precincts of the States where it exclusively belongs. These are her settled, permanent, and all-pervading sentiments, and they must shape the course of every true Representative of her people on this floor. South Carolina is pro-slavery-Massachusetts is antislavery. The one cherishes, the other has abolished, the institution within her borders. On this point the fathers of the two States stood face to face, in undisguised, sincere, and honorable opposition to each other. So their sons stand, to-day, and so they probably will continue to stand, until a wisdom and a power, higher than ours, shall solve the problem, dispose of the great difficulty, and establish the universal reign of freedom, justice and humanity, over the whole surface of this Republic. Let no man cite the late election in Massachusetts as indicative of a deliberate departure of the people of that State from the great principles of the Constitution, of recreancy to the cause of equal rights, or of a settled illiberality of policy or spirit. The two national parties which, under different names at different times, have existed since the foundation of the Government, and are, it cas scarcely be doubted, the natural result of a healthy state of our system, have been broken down in Massachusetts, as will probably be found to be the case everywhere else, by the introduction of the slavery element into Congress during the last four years. They have lost the confidence of the people. New issues are demanded. In the meanwhile a series of most untoward and irritating circumstances, in addition to the abuses which have attended the administration of the naturalization laws, has been creating a morbid excitement in the public mind in reference to the interference of foreigners in our elections. The old Puritanic cry of "no Popery" has been raised in all parts of the country, and has met, perhaps, with a special response in the vestiges of sentiments transmitted from an early age in Massachusetts, when, under the old charter, they were organized in a political form, and made the basis of the Government. In the general disarray of parties, and the temporary reign of prejudice and passion to which the public mind was left exposed, all disappointed, impatient, and discontented spirits In this connection let me say that the wealth rushed into the field, the advocates of all exploded which has been accumulated under that system of and all impracticable schemes conceived new incorporated business associations that prevail in hopes, every remnant of every faction, and every Massachusetts, and to which her humblest citiform of fanaticism was drawn into the political zens belong, is in no sense confined to that State, maelstrom. All barriers were thrown down, all but is diffused over the whole land. No great The city of Newburyport, the birth-place and former ties severed, and the result was a general enterprise, in any part of the Union, fails to home of the present eminently distinguished At-stampede that bore away all before it. receive its aid. It has helped to build every rail-torney General of the United States, strikingly road that has been projected in the remotest section of the country, and the distinguished member from Missouri will bear witness, from his recent experience, that Massachusetts capital will not be wanting to aid in the discharge of the great duty our country owes to itself in the construction, forthwith, of an Atlantic and Pacific railroad. At the public history of Massachusetts I need only glance-treat it as briefly as you may, crowd it into the narrowest condensation-it challenges comparison with that of the most celebrated and glorious States of ancient or modern times. In all illustrated the fact I am stating. There has always So it was throughout the State. The whole But the interests that contributed to swell the movement are already beginning to find themselves doomed to disappointment. Visionary projects will, after all, meet but little favor when put to the test of formal legislation. The people cannot be long kept from discovering that they have been misled by ideas that can never be realized; that many of the prejudices to which they have so incontinently yielded, have no foundation in reason or justice, and that the evils they are attempting to remove by political action can only be effectively reduced by moral influence. Those persons who have sincerely grieved over the deprivation of the 33D CONG....2d Sess. Maritime Rights of the United States—Mr. Walbridge. English Parliament the matter had been presented in a serious light to the European world. The policy of Russia, since the days of Peter the Great, had looked unceasingly to territorial aggrandizement. The French paper La Presse published, in 1818, the political will of that monarch, which, authentic or not, is a just outline of what the past has shown to be the policy of that empire; and the present corroborates it, as you will perceive by the eighth and ninth articles, as follows: "8th. Extend ourselves unceasingly towards the north, the whole length of the Baltic, and likewise to the south by the Black Sea. rights of three millions of our fellow men of the theme of discussion not only by British journalAfrican race, cannot always be blind to the incon-ists, but in the more elaborate discussions of the sistency of attempting to deprive three millions more of their fellow citizens of the European race of their equal political rights. Adherents of the Catholic church will be found as strongly imbued with the spirit of our institutions, as devoted to the country, as exclusive in their allegiance, and as much divided among themselves, as rebellious against ecclesiastical authority when it is thought to transcend its bounds, as any other sect. It will be the conclusion, I think, of a fair investigation, that the spiritual relation they sustain to the hear of their communion in no way affects their fidelity to this or any other country in which they may happen to reside. The distinction made by the great Head of all the churches-"render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's, and unto God the things that are God's"—will dispel all anxiety on this score. The humble laborer, who, following the life-long yearnings of his heart, has here found a refuge from oppression, will be acknowledged to be equal to the richest and proudest native born, in the eye of the Constitution, as truly as he is in that of the religion of universal brotherhood. The mischief and the danger of secret oath-bound political parties will be revealed in such baleful results as will prevent their ever being formed again in this land of freemen. Truth, honor, frankness, and fearless open dealing will once more pervade our politics. The prejudices of race will vanish from the legislation and the hearts of enlightened lovers of liberty and humanity, and the sanctity of every form of religious faith and worship will be restored, never again to be assailed, within the limits of Massachusetts. MARITIME RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES. "9th. To take every possible means of gaining Constantinople and the Indies-for he who rules there will be the true sovereign of the world; excite war continually in Turkey and Persia, establishing fortresses on the Black Sea; get control of the sea by degrees, and also of the Balfic, which is a double point necessary to the realization of our project; accelerate as much as possible the decay of Persia; penetrate to the Persian gulf; reestablish, if it be possible, by the way of Syria, the ancient commerce of the Levant; advance to the Indies, which are the great depot of the world. Once there, we can do without the gold of England." In the confidential conference which took place in 1853, and in the dispatches from the British embassador, Sir G. H. Seymour, in that year, to Lord John Russell, it is shown that the present Czar admitted that the policy of the Empress Catharine looked to the extension of the Russian power to Constantinople, and that the Emperor Alexander, in writing conâdentially, in 1822, to Lord Castlereagh, declared that he was "the only Russian who resisted the views of his subjects upon Turkey, and the loss of popularity which he had sustained by his antagonism to their wishes." SPEECH OF HON. H. WALBRIDGE, calmed the apprehensions of the Western Powers; OF NEW YORK, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union Mr. WALBRIDGE said: Mr. CHAIRMAN: There is a subject to which, at an early day in the first session of the present Congress, I had the honor to call the attention of this House, as one of grave moment to the commercial interests of the country, and of immediate concern to my constituents, and that is, the necessity of some distinct declaration by the legislative department of our Government of what, as a nation, we hold to be our neutral rights; and, at the same time, I deem it important to elicit a declaration from Congress in relation to the political attitude it is our duty to maintain respecting the Island of Cuba. The opening of the year 1854 was marked by a series of great events which threatened Europe with convulsion. The most casual observer could not fail to perceive that the forty years of comparative peace in Europe, which had only been temporarily interrupted by the struggling spirit of revolution, was on the eve of being broken up and a war begun, which has since blazed forth with so much fury, and the consequences and end of which human sagacity could not predict. The political drama had been opened by the Czar of Russia in his formal complaint against the settlement which the Sultan had made upon the conflicting claims of the Greeks and Latins to the holy places at Jerusalem. The question in regard to the holy shrines had been amicably settled by the Sultan, through the interposition of the British embassador at Constantinople. But the Russian embassador (Menschikoff) at Constantinople had another and more serious object in view, and that was the maintenance of a claim on the part of the Russian Government to an absolute protectorate over the Greek subjects of the Sultan. The direct effect of this soon attracted the attention of the Western Powers. It was nothing more nor less than a proposed transfer, by diplomatic interference, of the authority of the Sultan to the Czar over millions of Turkish subjects. The constant and repeated avowal of a pacific and moderate policy on the part of Nicholas, had and even this was not interrupted by the visit of the Czar, in 1844, to the continent and to England, although that visit was made in order that he might more fully and with greater secrecy make known his purposes, and smooth down all opposition, so as to secure a division of the Ottoman Empire, in such a manner as would inure to the territorial commercial interests of Russia. In 1844, then, we find Nicholas in England, in secret conference with the British Ministers, proposing a partition of Turkey; and, although he was there, proposing the dissolution of an Empire to one of the most powerful States of Europe, the world was in profound ignorance of the proceedings until they were brought to light by the diplomatic procedings in 1853, when the Czar urged that the hour for dissolution and partition was already at hand. On the 20th December, 1852, a new Ministry was formed in England, by which Lord Aberdeen was created Premier; Gladstone, Chancellor of the Exchequer; Viscount Palmerston, Secretary of State for the Home Department; and Lord John Russell, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. In the month following, we find the Czar in strict and confidential intercouse with the British embassador at St. Petersburgh, urging the importance of the closest amity between the two countries, and in the course of his conference, making the following explicit declaration to Sir G. H. Seymour: "Frankly, sir, I tell you plainly, that if England thinks of establishing herself one of these days at Constantinople, I will not allow it. I do not attribute this intention to you, but it is better on these occasions to speak plainly. For my part, I am equally disposed to make the engagement not to establish myself there as proprietor; that is to say-for as occupier I do not say it might happen that everything should be lett to chance-might place me in the circumstances-if no previous provision was made, if position of occupying Constantinople." And again, in declaring against the reconstruction of a Byzantine Empire, he added: Still less will I permit the breaking up of Turkey into little Republics for the Kossuths and Mazzinis and other revolutionists of Europe;" and that, " rather than submit to any of these arrangements," he "would go to war, and, as long as " he "had a man and a musket, would carry it on." It is to be remembered, in tracing the progress of events, that, by the treaty of 1774, between the The aggressive policy of Russia had been the || Empress Catharine of Russia and the Ottoman NEW SERIES.No. 17. to 66 Ho. OF REPS. Empire, she succeeded in obtaining a stipulation protect constantly the Christian religion and its churches." This is a stipulation in the seventh article of the treaty of Kainardjo. It was not asserted by the Russian Government, or even pretended, that there had been the slightest infringement of this treaty stipulation during the reign of the present Sultan, Abdul Medjid, who ascended the throne in 1839. The whole affair of the holy shrines, and the anxiety of the Emperor of Russia for a treaty securing a protectorate over the Greek Christians, who are the subjects of the Sultan, had, undoubtedly, the single object in view of taking the first decisive step, on the part of Russia, for the absorption of Turkey. The imperious demand of Menschikoff was refused by the Porte; and then came the demand of Nesselrode, threatening, in default of compliance, the occupation of the Danubian provinces of Wallachia and Moldavia, embracing nearly one fourth of the whole of Turkey in Europe. In the mean time, as dangers threatened and the policy of the Russian Emperor assumed a more substantive form, the British fleet, acting in concert with the French, proceeded from the British station at Malta to the Bosphorus, to watch the progress of events. Yet, as negotiations were pending, the Sultan, under the advice of the English embassador, did not, in the first instance, treat the invasion as a casus belli. The ostensible demands of the Emperor of Russia were met by the proposed full guarantee of immunities in the Vienna note. But the Emperor's real object was a very different thing. He insisted upon the actual transfer to him, and control by treaty, of over twelve millions of Turkish subjects. The Vienna note was rejected, and war was declared by Turkey against Russia. There remained no alternative to the western Powers but either to let the war proceed, and ultimately terminate by an extension of the Russian boundary along the shores of the Black Sea, taking in a portion of the Levant and Adriatic, or to interpose with all the formidable means they could command. The avowed motive of England and France to interfere merely to maintain the equilibrium of Europe, to defend the right of the weak against the strong, was a secondary purpose. The preponderating cause of interference on the part of England was the danger of allowing the grasping power of Russia to extend to the Anglo-India dominions and to the commercial privileges which the British people possessed in that direction. The new Emperor of the French, a man whose sagacity had been greatly underrated, but who is now acknowledged as taking the lead of the statesmen of Europe, had his Algerian territory to protect, and had been no idle calculator of the advantages likely to result from a collision of arms with the powerful monarch of the North. Besides, he weighed the popularity of a war, which was to some extent one of retribution. He knew the impulses of the French people for war, and the splendor with which it would invest his reign. He looked to the extension of territory, not only near at home, but perhaps along the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, and, for aught that may be, to the realization of the dreams of his illustrious ancestor, whose cannon had thundered around the pyramids, and who shed the lustre of his genius over the age in which he lived. There were deep wounds which had not been healed. The great Napoleon received his first check by the winter of Russia, and the Cossack thereby overrun the plains of France, and carried his standards even to her capital. The real cause of the interference of England was undoubtedly considered by her statesmen a political necessity. There were her Anglo-Saxon Indian dominions erected upon the shores of the Arabian sea and the Bay of Bengal, with harbors and stations stretching around to the Chinese seas. Turkey once absorbed by Russia, and where is the barrier that can be erected to check the millions of serfs that do the bidding of the Autocrat? Persia even now is virtually a dependency of Russiamoved, controlled, mastered by the policy of the Czar. Between the eastern limits of the Schah and the British peninsula of Hindostan is an in 33D CONG....2D SESS. Maritime Rights of the United States-Mr. Walbridge. termediate space of only some five or six hundred miles, occupied by Beloochistan, a branch of the Persian family, consisting of petty States, and recognizing the supremacy of the Khan of Kelat. It requires but little sagacity to discover the ulterior designs of Russia in that direction, and that the present was the most important move ever made to effect her object onward to the commerce of the East. It will be borne in mind, too, that there are now natural and political causes which hold in check the expansion of the commerce of Russia. She has, it is true, the White sea on the north-an arm of the Arctic ocean, but it is shut out from trade by the rigors of winter for the greater portion of the year-and the Baltic on the west; but these maritime points are also subject to a like difficulty, and are liable to be controlled by the fortifications of Denmark. We have thus glanced at the real aggressive reasons of Russia, and the real motives for resistance on the part of the Western Powers, who, obeying their instincts of cupidity, self-preservation, and also moved by the lust of dominion, made a demand upon Russia to evacuate the principalities within a given time, and that her default would be treated as equivalent to a declaration of war. But I draw the attention of this House and of the country, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that before the commencement of hostilities, or even the declaration of war, the danger of a collision with the neutral rights of the United States had attracted the anxious attention of even British statesmen. In Parliament, the Ministry were called upon to guard against this difficulty, since it might be fraught with incalculable, perhaps incurable, evils. In the debate which took place in the House of Commons, pending the contemplated action of England against Russia, Mr. Milner Gibson stated his views as follows: "I have thought it consistent with my duty to call the The British statesman then read from the works of that distinguished American jurist, Chancellor Kent, as follows: "It has been the desire of our Government to obtain the recognition of the fundamental principles consecrated by the treaty with Prussia in 1785, relative to the perfect equality and reciprocity of commercial rights between nations; the abolition of private war upon the ocean, and the enlargement of the privileges or neutral commerce. The rule of public law, that the property of an enemy is liable to capture in the vessel of a friend, is now declared, on the part of our Government, to have no foundation in natural right, and the usage rests entirely on force. Though the high seas are a general jurisdiction common to all, yet each nation has special jurisdiction over their own vessels; and all the maritime nations of modern Europe have at times acceded to the principle that the property of an enemy shall be protected in the vessel of a friend. No neutral, it is said, is bound to submit to the usage; and the neutral may have yielded at one time to the usage, without sacrificing the right to vindicate by force the security of the neutral flag of another." The distinguished member [Mr. Gibson] of the House of Commons, then went on to present to the House the importance of the proposition that free ships make free goods, and proceeded to say: "The question of a neutral flag has already involved Great Britain in war; that it involved that country not only in war with the United States, but, connected with other questions, with the Confederacy, who ranged themselves together in 1789, for the express purpose of an armed neutrality to defend the security of a neutral flag." cating to the House the views of the ministry, Lord John Russell, as the organ of communistated, in reply, that it was "the intention of the Government, who" had "been some time considering these subjects, to advise her Majesty to issue, in some shape or other, a document which" would "declare the policy of the Government on these subjects," that "hostilities had not then been entered into," and before they were "entered into, a declaration of the views and policy of her Majesty's Government would be made." Within a few weeks after this debate in the House of Commons, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the French Government, M. Drouin de attention of the House at the present time to the question l'Huys, made a report that received the approval of the rights of neutrality which may be enjoyed by other nations, in case that war, with which we are now threatened, should take place. The subject of my present motion relates simply to the position in which neutral mercantile vessels may find themselves during the continuance of hostilities. We are on terms of the most perfect amity with France and the United States of America, two of the most important naval and commercial Powers in the world besides ourselves, and therefore we might probably obtain their assent to such an alteration of international law upon this subject as would be befitting the times in which we live, and as would give liberal scope for commercial transactions in time of war. "On these grounds I think this is a favorable moment, by negotiations with foreign Powers, and in the exercise of our own discretion, to endeavor to carry on war with greater respect to private property than has yet been done," &c. "The propositions I have taken the liberty of making consist of two parts: "In the first place I ask you not to exercise the power of searching neutral vessels for the purpose of finding enemies' property; and I also ask you to consider the policy of our entering into treaty stipulations with the United States of America, and other foreign countries willing to entertain the subject, that free ships shall make free goods, and that the neutral flag shall give neutrality to the cargo. I propose not that you shall bind yourselves to agree to such a treaty stipulation by assenting to this motion, but merely that the Crown shall direct its ministers to consider the policy of such a measure. I believe there is very good ground for considering, at the present time, the policy of entering into a treaty with the United States and other foreign countries, in order that free ships may make free goods." It "I believe, and I speak on the authority of the ablest writers in the United States on this subject, that the Government of that country is willing, and always has been willing, whether in time of war or in time of peace, to enter into such a treaty. If England enters into such a treaty with the United States, you will grant to the United States this privilege, that the neutral flag of the United States shall be respected when England is at war; and you will obtain from the United States a similar privilege that, when the United States is at war, the neutral flag of Great Britain shall be respected. Thus, in entering into such a treaty stipulation, England obtains as much as she gives. Remember we are not now in the position with regard to the United States that we were half a century ago. might be a matter of some importance to receive the privilege of neutrality from other States in those days, because England was separated by a vast interval in her commerce from all other countries in the world; but, at the present time, if the number of our ships be great, the number of the United States ships is great also. It is possible that the United States may, unfortunately, be engaged in war with some powerful country. Your ships will then enjoy the privilege of neutrality, and will not be interfered with in their lawful deatings; and the same way, if the treaty I suggest existed now, the ships of the United States would not be interfered with in the carrying of ordinary mercantile produce." of Louis Napoleon, in which it is stated that " at a period when maritime relations and commercial interests occupy so large a share in the existence of nations, it is the duty of any Power obliged to wage war to take the necessary measures for alleviating, as much as possible, its effects, by leaving to the commerce of neutral nations every facility compatible with the state of hostility to which they endeavor to remain strangers. But it is not sufficient that the belligerent parties be fully determined to respect constantly the rights of neutrals; they are bound also to endeavor to calm down in advance the disquietudes which commercial men are always so prompt to conceive, by not allowing any doubt to subsist as to the principles which they intend applying;" that "a set of regulations on the duties of neutrals might appear a sort of infringement on the sovereignty of such nations as desire to preserve neutrality; while, on the contrary, a spontaneous declaration of the principles to which a belligerent party promising to conform, appears the most formal testimony that it can give of its respect for the rights of other nations." Accordingly, the French Emperor, on the 29th March, 1854, issued his declaration respecting to neutrals, identical with that which emanated from the British Government, as presented in the Queen's declaration dated the 18th March, 1854, at Windsor, in which it is stated as follows: "To preserve the commerce of neutrals from all unnecessary obstruction, her Majesty is willing, for the present, to waive a part of the belligerent rights appertaining to her by the law of nations;" that "it is impossible for her Majesty to forego the exercise of her right of seizing articles contraband of war, and of preventing neutrals from bearing the enemy's despatches; and she must maintain the right of a belligerent to prevent neutrals from breaking any effective blockade which may be established with an adequate force against the enemy's forts, harbors, or country;" but that "her Majesty will waive her right of seizing property laden on board of a neutral vessel, unless it be contraband of war;" that "it is not her Majesty's intention to claim the confiscation of neutral property not being contraband of war found on board enemy's ships; and her Majesty further declares that, being anxious to lessen as much as possible the evils of war, and to restrict its operations to the regularly organized forces of the country, it is not her 'present' intention to give letters of marque for the commissioning of priva teers." The terms of these declarations, on the part of Great Britain and France, are not such as, in my Ho. OF REPS. When these declarations reached the United States, now nearly a year ago, I felt it due not only to the commercial district which I have the honor to represent, but to our national dignity, that I should draw the attention of this House to the subject by the presentation of certain resolutions, in the expectation that the enlightened Committee on Foreign Affairs might examine the subject, mature such propositions for legislation as, in their judgment, was due to the great interest we represent, and the high responsibility we have assumed. We had felt the blasting effects of the Milan and Berlin decrees, and the British orders in council upon our commerce during the war that grew out of the French revolution in 1793. Our sovereignty as a nation was infringed, our commerce interrupted, our seamen imprisoned, and every indignity inflicted upon us under the municipal law of England, which she announced and enforced as international law. The time is now at hand, and the present juncture in the affairs of the belligerents of Europe those principles touching our maritime rights as a render it necessary on our part, for us to declare neutral Power, and a member of the family of nations. Our statesmen of the past, who were charged with the direction of public affairs, have left no uncertain or ambiguous record of their policy. From the moment we first established our nationality and independence, we acquired the unconditional and absolute attributes of political sovereignty, not only within our own limits, but also upon the high seas. In the act by which we erected ourselves into an independent Government, we claimed, as one of its high prerogatives, other things which independent States may of the right to "establish commerce, and to do all right do." The Revolutionary, or Continental Congress, which existed before the articles of confederation, as the supreme and controlling power of the Republic, under the sanction of the American people, asserted, in their alliance with France on the 6th February, 1778-the very first treaty they made as a sovereign Power-that "the essential and direct end of the present defensive alliance is to maintain effectually the liberty, sovereignty, and independence, absolute and unlimited, of the United States, as well in matters of government as of commerce. In the treaty of amity and commerce with that nation, concluded on the same day, it was expressly" stipulated that free ships shall also give a freedom to goods, and that everything shall be deemed to be free and exempt which shall be found on board the ships belonging to the subjects of either of the confederates, although the whole loading, or any part thereof, should appertain to the enemies of either, contraband goods being always excepted. It was also agreed, in like manner, that the same liberty be extended to persons who are on board a free ship, with this effect: that although they be enemies to both or either party, they are not to be taken out of that free ship, unless they are soldiers, and in actual ser vice of the enemies." In another article it was stipulated that the merchant ships of either of the parties which shall be making into a port belonging to the enemy of the other ally, and concerning whose voyage and the species of goods on board of her there shall be just grounds of suspicion, shall be obliged to exhibit, as well upon the high seas as in the ports and havens, not only her passports, but likewise certificates showing that her goods are not of the number of those prohibited as contraband. And it was also agreed, when once put on board the ship or vessel of either of the two contracting parties, that they should be subject to no further visitation. The first French revolution had broke forth in all its fury, and had repeatedly violated the faith in which these treaties were concluded, leaving Congress no alternative but to declare them on that account as released from their provisions, Yet, as 33r CONG....2D SESS. Veto of the River and Harbor Bill—Mr. Carpenter. a part of our revolutionary record, they remain to show the high ground then taken in connection with concerns so deeply affecting the prosperity of our people. In the early history of the Republic, when we were feeble, as a nation, we were compelled to yield, to some extent, to the iron rule of that nation that once held the trident of the ocean. But the times have changed, and we have since extended our own limits from ocean to ocean, from the great lakes of the north to the tropics. We have also increased in numbers from some three or four millions to a population of twentyfive millions, nearly equal to the aggregate population of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. From a tonnage of about a million and a half, in 1812, when we declared war against Great Britain for injuries upon our maritime rights, our commerce now reaches a tonnage within a fraction of five millions, quite equal to the whole tonnage of Great Britain. Space has been annihilated by the power of steam, and the two continents brought into such close proximity by the interests of trade and commerce, that we cannot remain otherwise than seriously affected by the war which now rages in Europe. That war has already swelled the annual expenses of the empire of Russia to the enormous amount of some two hundred and forty millions of dollars; being an excess over the regular revenue of a hundred millions of dollars, and leaving this sum as an annual deficit. England, with a national debt, the interest of which is one hundred and thirty-five millions of dollars annually, is engaged in a war which adds to her expenses annually from one hundred and fifty to one hundred and seventy-five millions of dollars; and France, saddled with immense burdens to sustain her Government, enters the field. with a weight of obligation oppressively felt by her toiling millions. No more auspicious period could ever be selected for the Government of the United States to declare its policy in reference to our maritime and commercial rights than at this juncture. views then announced, constitute the basis of the true American creed. We respect and should enforce the_Monroe doctrine of resistance to any attempt at European interference in the affairs of this continent. That is the great principle which pervades the State papers of all the different Administrations from the days of President Monroe to this hour. That it may have all the weight which an act of Congress would give, I desire, also, in connection with the subject of our neutral rights, that this doctrine shall also enter into our legislalation, and, therefore, Mr. Speaker, at an early period of the session at which I first had the honor to appear in this Hall, I felt it my duty to ask the attention of this House to these important subjects by the following resolutions. I again present them, earnestly hoping they may, at no distant day, be incorporated into the public law of this country, as I believe they will command the assent of the whole American people: "Resolutions of Congress declaratory of our maritime rights, and of our polity interdicting the extension of the European system of Government on any portion of this hemisphere. "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the United States, as a maritime power, having neutral rights to maintain, deem it proper, in view of the existing war in Europe, to declare and make known that every American vessel engaged in the lawful pursuits of commerce is held by this Government to be protected by the flag that covers her, and which shall be the evidence of her nationality; that we attach to all such vessels a character of sovereignty, considering them as clothed with immunities corresponding to those which appertain to our Territory; that our rights as thus declared rest upon no precarious or temporary basis, nor upon the concessions of any power, but upon public law, as insisted upon from the early history of the Republic; and that any attempt to enforce an obsolete right of impressment, search, detention, or visitation, in regard to such American ship, will be regarded as an act of hostility to the United States, and just cause of war. "Be it further resolved, That, as the existing conflicts in Europe may lead to the change of political sovereignty in some of the European Powers, and the destruction of political sovereignty in others, we deem it proper for Congress to make known to them that we affirm the doctrine that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system of government to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety; and, from the geographical and commercial position of the Island of Cuba to this continent, we will never consent to her sovereignty being transferred, except to the United States, to which she seems naturally to belong." Now, the United States claim the right to navigate the high seas without molestation on account of the strife which has been brought about by no act of theirs; and as an inherent and unalienable right that belongs to our sovereignty, and not because it is conceded by any treaty stipulation. Their laws and ability are competent to punish SPEECH OF HON. D. CARPENTER, any of our citizens for engaging in this quarrel, or aiding or abetting any of the belligerents. If their action should embroil us in difficulty with other nations, in acknowledging this obligation, and a willingness to adhere to the principle of non-interference, we demand, and will insist upon an absolute immunity to navigate the high seas in the peaceful pursuits of commerce, and will submit to no claim to search, visitation or detention, under any color or pretext whatever. The great principles of public law on which rests the present right, have been asserted by the distinguished patriots of the Revolution, and reiterated by the enlightened statesmen who have since presided over the Executive departments; but by the Constitution of the United States the power to declare war is delegated to the Congress of the United States. It is for the legislative department, then, of this National Government, to give their DECLARATION in time in the form of a public act. They have a right to demand a hearing in the council of nations, and to insist upon their doctrine as to what is the law of reason and right in this respect, and to enforce that doctrine, if need be, by all the means which the nation can command. There is another subject, Mr. Speaker, that naturally associates itself with the subject now presented for consideration, and that is, the relations we hold towards the Island of Cuba. The efforts made by the Western Powers with the Executive of this Government to induce an abnegation of any future acquisition by the United States, are known to the world. The policy at the bottom of this presumptuous measure on the part of France and England, and the irrationality of their interference, were ably exposed by a distinguished statesman who presided over the State Department at the close of the last Administration. The principles then declared by him, and the VETO OF RIVER AND HARBOR BILL. OF NEW YORK, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, February 24, 1855. The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union Mr. CARPENTER said: Mr. Chairman, I desire to express somewhat, though briefly, my views upon the opinions of the President, as set forth in his late veto message upon the river and harbor appropriation bill, passed at the last session of Congress. He assumes, as a "fundamental proposition, that the Federal Government is the creature of the individual States; and of the people of the States severally." Now, Mr. Speaker, we as sume that the Federal Government is the creature of the people of the United States in convention as sembled; and adopted and ratified by the people of the United States in convention assembled in their several States respectively. That all powers conferred upon the General Government by the and all powers, not thereby denied to the States, Federal Constitution are denied to the States; rest with the States severally. If the "Federal Government is the creature of the individual States," then a majority of the States can alter or amend the Constitution. But this is not the mode pointed out in the Constitution for its amendment. Article fifth of the Constitution says: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both House shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or on the application of the Legisiatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, whenever ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by Congress." Amendments can be proposed by two thirds of both Houses of Congress, or on the application of HO. OF REPS. the Legislatures of two thirds of the States; but the mode of the ratification of all amendments thereto is wholly within the power of Congress, and may be "by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by convention in three fourths thereof," as Congress shall determine. As the States, then, can ratify no amendment except by the authority of an act of Congress, it follows that the General Government is not "the creature of the individual States," in any legitimate sense or proper interpretation of the Constitution. The President also affirms "that all the powers of the Federal Government are derivative ones," &c. Derived from what source? Not as the President would have us believe, "from the individual States," but derived from the source of all political power, direct from the American people themselves, assembled in national convention, and ratified by the people assembled in convention in their respective States. Does not the Constitution of these United States declare itself to be "the supreme law of the land, anything in the constitution or laws in any State to the contrary notwithstanding." The powers enumerated therein are denied to the States, and are declared to be supreme in the Federal Government. What are those powers as made applicable to the principles of this bill, which has received the Executive veto? The eighth section of the first article of the Constitution is in these words: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," &c. But the President, passing by this eighth section of the Constitution, quotes the tenth article of its amendment, to wit: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Then he adds: "Starting from this foundation of our constitutional faith, and proceeding to inquire in what part of the Constitution the power of making appropriations for internal improvements is found, it is necessary to reject all idea of there being any grant of power in the preamble." True indeed! but who ever contended there was any grant of power in the preamble to the Constition of the United States? But he affirms "it only declares the inducements and the results of the things ordained and established by it." It is admitted, then, that one of its "inducements" was to "promote the general welfare," and, by consequence, to secure that "result" is one of its admitted "ends." Now, it will be observed that while, in the preamble to the Constitution, the "inducement" is expressed in the words "promote the general welfare," in the eighth section of article first, a much stronger and more expressive term is used to declare this particular "inducement" or desired "result," which I give in the following words: "and provide for the general welfare of the United States," &c. To "provide" for the "general welfare" implies a more definite and extended obligation and power than to "promote" the "general welfare." It is clear that the Constitution, as well as the preamble, intended to distinguish the power to provide for the common defense," from the power to provide for the "general welfare of these United States," as the one is made to follow the other in the same order in the body of the Constitution, as it does in the preamble, being predefense and general welfare," &c. ceded alike by the word "promote" in the latter, and "provide" in the former, for "the common I wish here to be understood as confining my remarks to the objects of the bill for river and harbor improvements as contained therein, and which were the subjects of the Executive veto, and not as referred to by the President as an indefinite and indiscriminate system of internal improvements, which "has no sufficient exactness of meaning to be of any value as the basis of a safe conclusion, either of constitutional law or of practical statesmanship." But what does the President concede to be works of a national character, and to be constitutional therefore? The power to dispose of the territory and other public property of the United States," the President concedes, carries with it the right "to |