Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

on the part of Great Britain, I confess that peace is no less the interest and the instinct of our own country. The United States might aggrandize themselves by war, but they are sure to be aggrandized by peace. I thank God that the peace of the world is largely subject to the control of these two great powers; and that, while they have common dispositions toward harmony, neither has need of war to establish its character for firmness or for courage. Each has had enough of

"The camp, the host, the fight, the conqueror's career."

Some honorable senators have averred that they could not trust this administration, because of its antecedents; that Britain was induced to assume a bold tone on this question, by triumphs which she had obtained in negotiations with this administration. One general remark meets all these objections; and that is, that they are extraneous issues, each one sufficient for a discussion in itself. Any senator, who thinks the interests of the country have been sacrificed can bring it before the Senate and the country, and present it distinctly for examination.

But, sir, what are these charges in regard to Cuba? Why, as I understand, that this administration interposed to prevent an expedition, which it was alleged was fitted out in this country for that island, in violation of our neutrality laws. Was this all? If it was, let senators dissatisfied repeal the neutrality laws if they can, and not censure the President for executing them. What complaint is made in regard to Mexico? Why, that the Secretary of State employed a British banker, as an agent, to pay the instalments on the debt of this government, payable in the city of Mexico. I see nothing wrong in that. An agent was necessary, and a foreign one. I believe the money was honestly paid to Mexico, and that she was satisfied. But it is said that British creditors got a portion of the money. I know not what obligations we were under to take measures to defeat British creditors, or any others, or the British government, from obtaining satisfaction of any of their debtors. Indeed, in some of the states, there is a system of remedies founded on the principle that the creditor has a right to attach money belonging to his debtor in transitu.

What has the administration done, or neglected to do, in regard to the Sandwich Islands? It is understood that this imagined shortcoming of the administration consists in the President's not

having entertained, as is supposed, a proposition from the government of the Sandwich Islands, to put themselves under the protection or subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States. I submit to honorable senators, that they begin at the wrong end: It was settled by the last precedent that the function of annexing belonged, not to the President, but to Congress. Congress have power to admit new states." Let senators who desire annexation, introduce the bill. I am ready to entertain the question for examination, and to act as prudence, wisdom, and the great interests of the country, shall be found to require. But I cannot prejudge a question so great, so momentous.

These alleged and mistaken triumphs of England, then, form no cumulative evidence to support the censures bestowed upon the administration in regard to the transaction in question.

And, now, what is the real question before Congress in regard to these fisheries? That question is simply this: The British colonies insist upon the rigorous construction of the convention of 1818, so as to exclude us from entering the large British bays, and distract and annoy our fishermen; and the people of the United States resist that construction, and they never will yield it. The British government approve in words, and yet, so far as their acts are concerned, refuse to support it. The controversy is thirty years old, and seems an endless one. While that question is kept up, the American fisheries, which were once in a most prosperous condition, are comparatively stationary or declining, although supported by large bounties. At the same time, the provincial fisheries are gaining in the quantity of fish exported to this country, and largely gaining in their exportations abroad. In 1844, those colonies sent us products of the fishery valued at $264,000; in 1851, the value of their fish which we received was $781,000. In 1844, they exported through our ports, to other countries, fish valued at $3,000; and 1851, their exported products were valued at $173,000!

Our fishermen want all that our own construction of the convention gives them, and want and must have more-they want and must have the privileges of fishing within the three inhibited miles, and of curing fish on the shore.

Consider for a moment the magnitude of the interest of the fisheries-that it employs a fleet of twelve hundred sail, managed by twelve thousand men, and a capital of four millions of dollars;

and that, together with the whale fishery, it constitutes the basis of our naval power.

Shall we not try to quiet and end this long and injurious dispute, and to procure for the fishermen not only peace and security, but also an extension of the fishing ground and its privileges? That is the question, and I am for the fishermen.

Sir, there ought to be a decision on this matter some time or other. At all events, delay is injurious and dangerous. We think the right is with us, and so I am sure it is. But nevertheless it is a question. The British government are our equals, and they hold it an open question. They quote American authorities, especially that of Chancellor Kent, against us. This shows us that they are as confident in maintaining their position as we are in maintaining ours. We can dictate no terms to Great Britain. We will not allow her to dictate terms to us.

Now, sir, can we, in any event, yield our right to navigate the Gut of Canso, and with it the fisheries of the Straits of Northumberland? No! Can we enjoy our fisheries as we ought while these disputes exist? No! Are we to leave them open, and, if so, shall our fisheries be carried on hereafter under the surveillance of an armed British squadron, and the guardianship of a naval fleet of our own?

The indications are abundant that it is the wish of the Senate that the Executive should not treat upon this subject, and I think wisely. I agree on that point with my honorable and distinguished friend from Massachusetts, [Mr. DAVIS.] What the colonies require is some modification of commercial regulations which may affect the revenue. This is a subject proper to be acted upon by Congress, not by the President, if it is to be acted upon at all. It must not be done by treaty. We seem to have courted the responsibility, and it rests upon us. Let us no longer excite our selves and agitate the country with unavailing debates; but let us address ourselves to the relief of the fishermen, and to the improvement of our commerce.

Now, sir, there is only one way that Congress can act ; and that is by reciprocal legislation with the British Parliament or the British colonies of some sort. I commit myself to no particular scheme, or project of reciprocal legislation, and certainly to none injurious to any agricultural or manufacturing interest. I, for one, will give my poor opinion upon the subject; and it is this:

That so long hereafter as any force shall be maintained in those north-eastern waters, an equal naval force must be maintained there by ourselves. When Great Britain shall diminish or withdraw her armed force, we ought to diminish or withdraw our own; and that in the mean time a commission ought to be raised, or some appropriate committee of this body-the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on Finance, or the Committee on Commerce should be charged to ascertain whether there cannot be some measure adopted by reciprocal legislation to adjust these difficulties and enlarge the rights of our fishermen, consistently with all the existing interests of the United States.

CONTESTED SEAT OF ARCHIBALD DIXON.

DECEMBER 20, 1852.

MR. PRESIDENT:-Since I adressed the Senate in favor of allow ing Mr. Dixon to take the seat he claims, provisionally, it has been pleased to receive for consideration a proposition to admit him, without reservation, as a Senator from Kentucky.

The action of the Senate, at least in one event, will be canvassed throughout the country, and for many years; I shall therefore assign the reasons for my vote.

The question involves a construction of the Constitution.

The only portions of the Constitution touching the case are these:

*

*

"ART. 1, SEC. 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years." * "2. Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year; of the second class, at the expiration of the fourth year, and of the third class, at the expiration of the sixth year; so that one third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies.

"SEC. 4. The times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators."

Kentucky has prescribed in this matter for herself, and Congress has not, at any time, by law, "made or altered any regulations concerning it.

The following facts make up the case. On the 17th of December, 1851, Henry Clay was a Senator from Kentucky, chosen by the legislature, for six years, which would have expired on the 3d of March, 1855. Being so a Senator, he resigned by a communica tion to the Legislature of Kentucky, declaring that it was to take

« ForrigeFortsett »