to the encroachments of the crown upon the rights of the people. Fortunately, in the United States, universal suffrage preserves the general interests from the corrupting iufluence of federal patronage. It has not, however, protected the constitution from violent attempts to pervert its meaning, and by latitudinarian construction to enhance its powers, and encroach upon the rights of those states which assented to its consummation only after long and careful consideration had resulted in the conviction that the individual interests of the joint partners were thoroughly protected from federal usurpation. As in the popular mind, the origin of the constitution, and the circumstances which attended it, have become dimmed, the constant ef forts of a great party have served to impress upon it an idea of federal supremacy, and therefore to weaken the sacred moral obligations, which a solemn existing compact imposes upon all the members towards each other. The democratic party, embracing the great body of the people, have ever clung to a strict construction of the constitution, and in their steady adherence to the principles it inculcates, have ever found means to withstand, and ultimately defeat the injurious encroachments upon popular and sectional rights, which the federal party and political leaders have sought to carry out by loose construction of the plainest provisions of that instrument. Whenever deviations from the spirit of that document have once been effected, those precedents have been set up as authority for new encroachments, thus giving evidence of the force of implication and the urgent necessity for sleepless vigilance in guarding the constitution against the authority of foregone and vicious legislation. As an incidental illustration of our meaning, we may allude to the fact, that out of the power "to coin money and regulate its value," has been extracted the supposed authority to charter a company of bankers, and confer on them the power of issuing paper money as a national currency. In the authority" to regulate commerce," it was pretended existed the right to restrict one branch by prohibitory duties, and to cherish another by direct bounties. Acquiescence in this infringement of the spirit of the bond of union led to the supposed authority to collect money into the national treasury, and distribute it among the states; and still again the federal power to raise money for indefinite expenditure on objects of internal improvement, is contended for. It is the duty of all constantly to look to that instrument, rather than to statutory laws, and promptly to denounce those encroachments upon its spirit, which are apt to be effected through peculiar and facilitating circumstances. These claims, with others of vast import, extensive and unlimited, would, if unresisted by the people, soon merge the sovereignty of the states in a central government, under the sway of which sectional, local and individual interests would be sacrificed to executive power.

The patronage of the federal government, comprising, as it does, some thirty-five thousand places at its disposal in the post-office and customs department, in addition to the cabinet officers with their clerks and dependants, the army and navy, the diplomatic and consular corps, the registers, receivers, surveyors, and other officers connected with the public land system and territorial governments; the Indian agencies, and jobbers, and contractors under an expenditure of, in usual years, $30,000,000, and near $70,000,000 for this and perhaps the next year, forms the glittering prize of honors and emoluments which is the reward of a successful party in the presidential contest; and this prize is swollen in magnitude and value through the state patronage that falls into its hands, as the result of those local triumphs through which the grand victory is attained. Probably not short of one hundred thousand places, the duties of which are local, and scattered throughout every township and village of the Union, are at the dis

posal of the successful party, interesting directly at least three hundred thousand individuals. Under the pernicious system which has obtained of making these places the reward of the most active and successful partizan for favors to be rendered, each office becomes the rallying point for partizan efforts and influence in support of the party; and whatsoever may be the actual number of places to become the prize of the victors, it must be at least tripled to represent the number of competitors for their enjoyment. Year by year, as the Union swells in magnitude, and the people multiply in numbers, the patronage that surrounds the federal executive becomes more important, and the strife increases in proportion to the value of the prize and the number of competitors. The tendency of this state of things is evidently to seek, in latitudinarian construction of the constitution, the means of diverting patronage into particular channels, to swell its volume, and stimulate a greater number through hope of personal advantage, into active partnership, as well as to encroach upon the pledges of the constitution, in order to check the growth of supposed adverse interests. Fortunately, thus far, the great leading topics of party differences have not been entirely sectional in their character, but have had equally advocates and opponents in all parts of the Union. As, however, the disposition developes itself to assail more rudely the guarantees of the constitution, and to usurp for the federal government the rights of interfering indirectly with the concerns of the individual states, the strife becomes more dangerous, and the duty of all more imperative to investigate and vigorously to adhere to that instrument, which hitherto has been found equal to our greatest emergencies.

In 1782 thirteen slaveholding states, independent of each other, of variously constituted governments, inhabiting different climates, and possessed of diversified resources, met to form a bond of common union. They were united in opposition to the imperial government which had sought to enforce its control over them, and that necessity of resisting a common enemy compressed them into a harmony which they might otherwise have not succeeded in attaining. To arrive at it in a manner to protect their several interests, the spirit of compromise was invoked, and in no instance in a greater degree than that which appertained to the cession of the public lands, and the provisions for the admission of future new states into the Union. The position of Vermont, which had forced itself into being between the states of New-York and New-Hampshire, occupied very much the position in regard to the confederation that Texas did in relation to the Union. It held possession of lands claimed by New-Hampshire on one side and New-York on the other, and exercised independent sovereignty in defiance of both states and the advice of congress; and her attempts to be admitted to the Union not being immediately successful, she "coquetted" with Great Britain through her rulers, as did Texas more recently. Lord G. Germaine was the agent in her case, as was Capt. Elliot in that of the southern state. Her "coquetry" was carried so far, however, that a royal charter for the state and a royal commission for the governor were sent out from England. Congress, however, promptly sent an officer to arrest the Vermont "rulers," Luke Knowlton and Seth Wells, known to be in correspondence with Lord Germaine, and it turned out that this "coquetry" was the result of advices from congress that "affairs were unfavorable to them," and they had "better look out for themselves." They were doing so when arrested by the officers of Congress. The Texan rulers, under the same circumstances, were arrested by public opinion. Vermont then, by paying New-York $30,000 for its claims and compromising with New-Hampshire, got matters in a better train, and congress, in forming the clause for admitting new states into the Union, was compelled to adapt it to her peculiar case, as thus Mr. Gouverneur Morris proposed the following:

"New states may be admitted by the legislature into the Union; but no new states shall be erected within the limits of any of the present states, without the consent of the legislature of such state, as well as of the Central Legislature."

Mr. Martin immediately objected that under this provision Vermont would be subjected to New-York, which claimed as its "limits" the land occupied by Vermont, although the first part of the clause was framed expressly to cover the case of Vermont, which was that of an independent state seeking admission into the Union. On motion of Mr. Morris the word "limits" was changed to "jurisdiction," because, although New-York claimed part of Vermont as its "limits," it had established no "jurisdiction" there, and Vermont was admitted to the Union as a slave state, being the first. Since then sixteen states have been admitted on equal terms with the old thirteen and on the same principles, viz: a joint interest in all that concerns general welfare, and equal rights in all that pertains to general interest. It has been the case, however, that from the moment when that union was formed down to the present moment, a jealousy of new states and a desire to check the national growth has been manifest with certain parties. The great principle of emigration and territorial expansion is the welfare of individuals composing the body of the people, and the improvement of the condition of the poor, while that which governs political leaders seems to be the aggrandizement of the few through the success of sectional parties endangered by interests that spring up in new states. This feeling betrayed itself in the debate on the clause for the admission of new states, as follows:

"Mr. Madison insisted that the western states neither would nor ought to submit to a union which degraded them from an equal rank with the other states. COL. MASON.-If it were possible by just means to prevent emigrations to the western country, it might be good policy. But the people will go, as they find it for their interest, and the best policy is to treat them with that equality which will make them friends, not enemies. Mr. GovVERNEUR MORRIS did not mean to discourage the growth of the western country. He knew that to be impossible. He did not wish, however, to throw the power into their hands."

How the policy of preventing western emigration could, in a national point of view, be "good," it is difficult to understand. Under the supposition that the western lands were to remain a desert forever, and the mighty Mississippi a barren waste of waters, the Atlantic states might have become more speedily settled, and real estate holders and land companies more speedily wealthy. But the land which is the birth-right of freemen could not be kept from their possession on the banks of the Mississippi, the Missouri, the Sabine, the Rio Grande, the San Francisco, or the Columbia, any more than on those of the Hudson; and the policy was recognized of throwing open the whole western territory to emigration, and admitting new states as they arose on the same footing as the old. After the formation of the Union almost the whole body of the people seemed to get in motion for the west, and the valley of the Mississippi speedily swarmed with settlers. Spain, however, held the Mississippi river on both banks three hundred miles from its mouth, and refused to the western states an outlet for their produce through New-Orleans to the markets of the world. Immense dissatisfaction sprang up on this subject. The western men languished for ten years under the most intolerable commercial oppression in having their only passage to market, the great Mississippi, stopped by Spanish troops and custom houses. Spain persisted in withholding all rights and privileges in that navigation. from citizens of the United States. There were various grounds of policy for this refusal; but probably that which predominated was a secret hope that the western inhabitants, weary of these obstacles to their commerce, and dissatisfied with the national government for not removing them, might sooner

or later dissever themselves from the Union and form a separate republic, which would easily fall under the control of Spain. The same secret hope was entertained by the north-eastern "no territory" party; and the delays of the Federal Government in not bringing the matter to a close, added to the satisfaction of that party when the growing impatience of the west was observed to result from its tardiness. Indignation ran high when it was rumored that Mr. Jay had proposed to the court of Spain to waive the right of the western people to the free navigation of the river for twenty years, if Spain would concede the right at the end of that time. It was then that the leading men of the west "coquetted" with the Spanish Government, and Thomas Powers, an intriguing Englishman in the employ of Spain, succeeded in arranging with Judge Sebastian and others to meet the Spanish commissioners, and arrange for a dismemberment of the Union and the formation of a Spanish government. Affairs changed, however, and the conspiracy did not succeed. The hope that another nation would spring up on the western slopes of the Alleghanies was as futile as that recently expressed by Daniel Webster, Esq., at Boston, that a new nation would spring up on the western slopes of the Rocky Mountains. The Union was never in greater danger than at that moment. The ridge of the Alleghanies formed a barrier, then uncut by railroads and canals, which hemmed in the agriculture of the west, and barred it from the markets of the world. The great natural outlet, the Mississippi, drained every portion of the mighty valley, and should roll forward with its rich freight to the bosom of the ocean, and be the means of connecting the prolific west with the commercial world, instead of which, it was barred and dammed up by the Spanish custom-houses. The wily Spaniard offered free passage to western produce if the states west of the mountains would separate from the Union, otherwise they barred the passage except to the goods of those "leaders" who "coquetted" with the Spanish Government in the furthering of its designs. It is utterly impossible that the country watered by the Mississippi should be occupied by different nations, unless under a system of the most perfect free trade. The wars in Europe produced changes in the colonies of the leading governments, and Louisiana passing from Spain to France, and from her hands into those of he United States, became a territory of the Union, and gave value to the whole western country. Its trade has increased as much as indicated in the following items:

EXPORTS TO NEW-ORLEANS FROM WESTERN STATES.

Flour
bbls.

Beef & Pork
bbls.
3,000..

2,000.

Sugar Total valu hhds.

1802.. 50,000.... 34.000...... 4.000.... $2,821,350 1847.1,617,675...... 366,590......55,558......724,508......83,016.....90,033,256

The number of vessels arrived at New-Orleans in 1802, was 107 American and 97 Spanish. These have increased to 655 American, and 266 foreign. The number of flat-boats down the river, was 500; and in 1847, 2792 exclusive of the steam-boats-of these more than one-third are from Ohio. The possession of Louisiana was soon followed by the necessity of possessing Florida also, in accordance with the views of Jefferson, expressed in 1786:

"Our confederacy must be received as the hive from which all America, north and south. is to be peopled. We should take care, too, not to think it for the interest of that great continent, to press too soon upon the Spaniards. Those countries cannot be in better hands. My fear is, that they are too feeble to hold them until our population can be sufficiently advanced to gain it from them piece by piece. The navigation of the Mississippi we must have soon. This is all we are as yet ready to receive."

How perfect was the forecast that produced such views in 1786. His fears in relation to the weakness of Spain were just, and it was only a fortunate combination of circumstances that rescued Louisiana from France, after the all-powerful Emperor had his grasp upon it. The feebleness of Spain, and the outrageous conduct of Great Britain, in violating the neutrality of Spain by invading the United States from Florida, and inciting the Creek war by her emissaries, hastened the occupation of Florida, and finally the treaty of 1819, by which Spain ceded the territory. In this treaty, however, that selfish anti-national jealousy of western growth entertained by New-England from the earliest times, influenced the first dismemberment of territory that belonged of right to the Union. The Boston Sentinel of November 12, 1803, the organ of that party, and conducted by one who afterward was a member of the Hartford Convention, remarked:

"The politicians of the north-eastern states were anxious to give such a shape to the Union, as would secure the dominion over it to its eastern section."

This was the leading motive which has allowed no opportunity to escape of retarding western growth and prosperity.* The same policy induced New-England to advocate, in 1814, the cession of the navigation of the Mississippi river to Great Britain, and virtually all beyond. The same influence induced Mr. Adams, voluntarily and without equivalent, to surrender, by the treaty of 1819, the tract five hundred miles in breadth, between the Sabine and the Rio del Norte, a country three times as large as the Floridas, for which he stipulated to pay $5,000,000. That the dismemberment of Louisiana was a treacherous surrender of national rights in accordance with the "no territory" policy of the federal party, has been well established, and the venerable and incorruptible Jackson, in a letter of October, 1844, almost the last that he wrote, recorded his detestation of that act in words as follows:

"I may be blamed for spelling Mr. Erving's name wrong; but I trust I shall never deserve the shame of mistaking the path of duty, where my country's rights are involved. I believe from the disclosures made to me of the transactions of 1819, that Mr. Adams surrendered the interests of the United States when he took the Sabine river as the boundary between us and Spain, when he might have gone to the Colorado, if not to the Rio del Norte. Such was the natural inference from the facts stated by Mr. Erving; and there is nothing in the account now given of the negotiation to alter this impression. The address, on the contrary, does not at all relieve Mr. Adams. It proves that he was then, as now, an alien to the true interests of his country; but he had not then, as now, the pretext of co-operation with Great Britain, in her peaceful endeavors to extinguish slavery throughout the world."

The territory so surrendered was speedily settled by Americans, and the succeeding difficulties flowed naturally from the act of Mr. Adams. Mr. Monroe, yielding to the prejudices of the East, reluctantly assented to the treaty, assured that the territory would come back as soon as our popula

66

*The result of the annexation of Louisiana, to which Massachusetts made such fierce resistance, and threatened secession from the Union, on the ground that it was the means of extending slavery, was the erection of slave states, and the sales of large quantities of lands to those planters who went thither to locate their slaves. These sales enhanced the federal revenues, and, as we cannot discover in the avidity with which all the states received their share of the instalments on the division of the surplus so produced, any indications of that aversion to a practical extension of slavery which was so evident against the theory, we may infer that it is not so deep rooted as to clash with interest. In 1811, under the law to distribute the land revenues, all the states took their shares, although it was the actual money paid by planters to extend slavery, except New-York, (and we believe Virginia and NewHampshire,) refused her share, $84,000, on the ground that it was an unconstitutional use of fe deral revenues. The other states had no scruples whatever when their coffers closed over the money, neither in relation to the abuse of federal power in making the distribution, nor in respect to its having been the proceeds of an extension of slavery.