Abridgement of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 (4 of 16 vol.). United States. Congress

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ Gardenier suggested to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, since he had brought the subject before the House, the propriety of going the whole length of his principle. To my mind it is very clear, said he, that if those who oppose the law are to be remunerated, for what it cost them in consequence of prosecution, you must go only on the principle that the direct tax never ought to have been laid at all. If the law was right, it was improper to oppose it. If it was improper, perhaps according to modern democracy, it might be proper to oppose it by force. That, to my mind, is a very dangerous doctrine for legislators to broach; it is a doctrine to which I myself can never agree, for it is making Government a nullity. The suggestion which I wish to make is this: that if those men who suffered in the Hot-water Insurrection are to be remunerated, it is no more than fair that those should be remunerated who have quietly paid this tax. They were at least respectful to the laws. The committee therefore ought to be instructed to inquire into the propriety of repaying to the several contributors in the various States the direct tax, collected from them, unless there be something so admirable, so lovely, so worthy of encouragement in insurrection, that those concerned in it have peculiar claims to encouragement by Government. If that be the case, the gentleman stopped at the proper point. If there was nothing in insurrection, however, which the Legislature would feel it proper to cherish, the gentleman should either go the whole length of his principle or not touch it at all.

      Mr. Ross said he had not undertaken to state any principle at all. His object was to refer the subject to a committee to decide upon. He had not said that he considered the original resolution to contain a correct principle; it was a point left for the committee to consider and for the House to determine on. But if it was a correct principle that those who suffered under the sedition law should be remunerated, he said he had no hesitation in saying that his constituents, who had suffered as materially and as much as any for the democratic interest in this country, should be placed on the same ground as those who were asking for the favor of the House for no better reason; and when the gentleman calls upon me, said Mr. R., to go the whole length of a principle which he states, it is calling upon me to do that which is consequent on a principle which I have not assumed. The gentleman from Kentucky conceives that there is a difference between the cases alluded to in my amendment and the cases arising under the sedition law. Where is the difference, sir? In both cases they were laws of the United States: in both cases the judges of the courts of the United States were authorized to proceed. In neither of the cases did they decide the law unconstitutional. If, then, persons were punished by the sedition law in its full operation, carried into effect by the constituted authorities, where, I ask, is the distinction between that and any other law? To all the purposes of legality, that law is as much legal as that under which the direct tax was instituted. Whether the law under which a direct tax was collected, was constitutional or not, has it not as equally received the disapprobation of the Republicans of the United States as the sedition law? If then it was the object of the democratic party to rid the country of such a law as much as of the sedition law, I ask whether those who suffered under each law have not equal claims? There can be no legal claim upon the House under either law; but we know that it was the hardy yeomanry who presented a firm phalanx to the irresistible torrent of injurious laws of the Federal Administration, and who gave the present party the ascendency, and many of them have not, as the gentleman from Kentucky has been, compensated for their suffering by a long continuance in an honorable and lucrative office which he enjoys by the confidence of his constituents.

      Mr. Potter declared himself at a loss to know whether the House was sitting here as a branch of the Legislature to pass laws, or as a body to remunerate those concerned in the violation of them. The House sit here to make laws and not to encourage those who resisted them; but if they determined to give premiums for the violations of laws, they had better depart home at once.

      Mr. Rhea wished the House to get rid of this motion and the amendment as speedily as possible. If the House were to go on as it had commenced the session, the whole time of the House would be spent about nothing, discussing propositions which could not possibly produce good to the nation. He therefore moved to postpone the whole subject indefinitely.

      Mr. Macon said he had been in hopes when this motion had been made, that it would be one of the happy days of the House; that the question proposed would occupy the whole day in debate, and that all would agree in it at last. As to comparing this case with that of the direct tax, it was notorious that the discussion on the sedition law and the public opinion also took a very different turn from that which it took on any other law. The whole discussion (said Mr. M.) as well as I recollect, turned upon the constitutionality of the law. Then, if it is still believed that the law was unconstitutional, I leave it to gentlemen to say whether it can be viewed in the same light as a law, the constitutionality of which is not disputed. In the one case, trials took place for speaking and writing; in the other case for opposing the execution of a law. I wish this question to be settled for this reason: In all governments where liberty and freedom have existed, parties also have had existence. Thinking honestly produces parties. That those gentlemen who were in power when the sedition law was passed, should step a little too far, was not so much to be wondered at as that those who came after them should do so; because they were making the first experiment of the instrument. I then believed, and do still believe, that the law was unconstitutional. Taking up this question, the original resolution of my colleague is that remuneration should be made to those people who suffered under it; but seeing that the question with respect to the constitutionality of the law had always been matter of dispute, it proposes that a committee shall inquire into the subject. The House is no farther committed by passing this resolution, than to consent to the inquiry being made. I submit it to the candor and reflection of gentlemen of all parties, whether this thing, in a national point of view, can produce any evil – on the contrary, may it not produce good? All that has been said about the direct tax laws can have no other effect than to draw off the attention of the House from the true question before them. The question on this law, in my mind, is a different one from any other law which has been passed. I feel no hesitation in acknowledging that it is my opinion that all the sufferers ought to be remunerated, both those who suffered under the sedition law, and those who suffered under the common law. It is the business of all parties to settle amicably as they can any subject of contention between persons of different political persuasions. If this first resolution should be referred to a committee, and they report that the law was unconstitutional, I will venture to pronounce that no majority will ever again make a law of that kind. If, sir, the sufferers under the sedition law did suffer contrary to the constitution, ought not their expenses to be reimbursed? On the subject of contribution, I know that that party to which I was attached, did contribute, and did consider it an honorable cause. I was willing (and there are gentlemen in this House who know it) to open my purse when a man of a very different political creed from myself, Peter Porcupine, was oppressed. I care not of what party a man be, that is oppressed. I can prove that the party opposed to me in politics have also subscribed. It is all no more than the subscriptions for printing speeches which are occasionally made in the House, in which gentlemen of all parties unite. Suppose that the whole fine in any particular case had been paid by individual subscription, what has the Government to do with that? Will it be contended, because an old soldier who received a pension also received individual contributions, that the pension should be taken from him, or that the Government is thereby acquitted of what it owed him? Surely not; the Government has nothing to do with transactions between individuals. As to the particular gentleman brought into this discussion, I believe that every man that contributed any thing towards paying the fine levied on him, was remunerated to his satisfaction. I have thought proper to state these opinions of mine, and to avow myself in favor of reimbursing the sufferers. But before I sit down, I must say that my opinion of modern democracy is very different from that of the gentleman from New York. I consider it as neither leading to insurrection, rebellion, nor any such thing. I believe that the true principle of every modern democrat, is, that the law constitutionally made is supreme, and is to be obeyed; that it has nothing to do with riots, rebellion, and insurrection. I know very well, and shall not deny it, that there are times when insurrection is a holy thing, but it is not peculiarly attributable to democracy. With us, election puts every thing to rights; and on them every man of pure democratic principles depends. It is doubtful whether the question of the constitutionality of the СКАЧАТЬ