The Charlotte Journal

Mr. Webster.--Although laboring under deep depression, I still feel it my duty at as early a moment as I may be able, to address the Senate upon the state of the country, and on the further prosecution of the war. I have listened, sir, silently but attentively, to the discussion which has taken place upon this bill, and upon other connected subjects in this Senate; and it is not my purpose to enter into the historical narrative, or the historical argument which has accompanied its discussion on the one side or on the other. New events have arisen, bringing new questions; and since the resumption of the discussion upon this measure, two or three days ago, these events have been alluded to, first by the honorable Senator who conducts this bill through the Senate; and, again, by the honorable Senator before me from Carolina. By both these honorable members those events have been declared to be well known to all the world; and by one of them, [Mr. Cass,] it was remarked that there need be no affectation of mystery.

Since these statements were made I have heard the gentleman from South Carolina express his views on the question. I have heard him on various and momentous subjects--on many interesting occasions; and I desire to say, sir, that I never heard him with more unqualified concurrence in every word he uttered. The topics which he discussed were presented, it appears to me, in their just light; and he sustained his own views in regard to them with that clearness and power of argument which always characterizes his efforts in debate. I thank him. I thank him especially for the manly stand he took upon one point, which has been so much discussed here as elsewhere--I mean the plain, absolute unconstitutionality and illegality of the executive government in attempting to enact laws by executive authority, in conquered territories, out of the United States. Sir, whether the power exists in the President or not, may be inferred by answering another question--does he wear a crown? That's the only question. If he wears a crown--if he is the king of the country--if we are the subjects, and they who are conquered by the arms of the country become his subjects also, and owe him allegiance, why, then, according to well-established principles, until the interference of the legislature, but no longer even then, he may conquer--he may govern--he may impose laws--he may lay taxes--he may assess duties. The king of England has done it, in the various cases of conquest, from the conquest of Wales and Ireland, down to the conquest of the West India islands, in the war of '56, and in the wars growing out of the French revolution. The King of England has done it; done it by royal prerogative; done it in the government of his own subjects, existing in or inhabiting territories not under the protection of English law, but governed by him until Parliament puts them under protection of English law. Now, sir, there was laid before us at the commencement of the session, a system of legislation for Mexico, as for a conquered country. Let us not confound ideas that are in themselves separable and necessarily distinct. This is not the question; whether he who is in an enemy's country at the head of an army, may not supply his daily wants; whether he may not seize the granaries and the herds--if he choose so to conduct the war--of the enemy in whose country he is --that is one thing, but the question is here; whether sitting in the Presidential House, by an act of mere authority, when the country is conquered and subdued, the President of the United States, may by, and of, and through his own power establish in Mexico a system of civil law.

We have read, sir, and some of us have not forgotten it, in all books of authority treating of the law of nations, that when a country is conquered or ceded, its existing laws are not changed till the competent authority of the conquering power changes them. That I hold to be the universal doctrine of public law. Well, here is a system of levying taxes--repealing old laws--and making new ones; a system behind that, of which I read with pain and mortification, for I find in this communication of the Secretary sanctioned by the President, that our brave troops, (as they are always called, ten times in every page,) were directed to lay hold on all the little municipal treasures--all the little collections for special purposes, that carried on the interior, the municipal, what we should call the parish concerns of Mexico! They were directed to seize them all! The War Department issued orders to chase the government of Mexico like a partridge on the mountain, from city to city--to give it no rest for the sole of its foot--to exterminate it; and another order issued from the Treasury Department at the same time, directed this seizure of all these small and petty sums of public money. I am obliged, therefore, to the gentleman from South Carolina for having brought this subject to the attention of the Senate.

I am happy in having an opportunity of expressing my repugnance to all the doctrine and all the practice. Where will it lead to? What does the President do with this money? Why, he supports the army! But this money never passes under any appropriation of law. The constitution of the United States says that the Executive power shall have no appropriations for military purposes for more than two years. But here there is a standing appropriation, put at the disposition and discretion of the President of the United States of all the money he can collect by this system of personal, Executive legislation over seven millions of people, and that under the constitution of the United States! If the statement of this case does not attract the attention of the community,--in short, if the question is not argued before an American Senate, when it is stated, it is beyond my power to illustrate it by any further argument.

Sir, while I rejoice that the honorable member from South Carolina has done so important a service as to put this question in a proper and clear light before the community and the Senate; and while I agree, as I have said, in all that he has uttered on the topics which he has treated; that topic which was upon my mind and my conscience more than all the rest, was a topic which he did not treat, and in regard to which I fear I may not expect--would to God that I could expect!--his concurrence, and the strength of his arm; I mean the object, plain and manifest, original in the inception of this war, not always avowed, but always however the real object; the creation of new States on the southern border of the United States, to be formed out of the territory of Mexico, and the people inhabiting the territory of Mexico. If after a service of thirty years in these councils, he could have taken a lead--if his convictions of duty, I mean to say, could have allowed him to take a lead and make a stand for the integrity of the United States--even with these large recent accessions, which I am willing to consider are brotherly accessions, that I have no disposition to reject, discourage or discountenance in the existing circumstances of the case--if, I say, sir, that at the end of our common service, now for thirty years, the honorable member could have seen his line of duty to lie in such a direction that he could have taken a stand for the integrity of the United States--these United States, into whose service he and I entered in early life, with warm and equally warm patriotic affections --the love of a known country, a defined country, an American country--if he had found it consistent with his duty to have taken such a stand, and I had perished in supporting him in it, I should feel that I had perished in a service eminently connected with the prosperity of the country.

Mr. President, I am obliged to my friend from Georgia for having taken that view of some topics in this case, with his usual clearness and ability, which will relieve me from the necessity of discussing those subjects which he has taken up. I feel, sir, the great embarrassment which surrounds me, brought about by those events which have taken place and been adverted to in the Senate. It has been stated by the gentleman to whom I alluded, [Mr. Cass,] that the whole world knows that a treaty has come hither from Mexico--that it has been acted upon here, and is sent back--that a member of this body, occupying an eminent position in its deliberations and conduct, has been sent out as a minister with full powers to make explanations---of course not explanations of what has been done here. There has been such a paper here --I allude to none of its particulars, although following the example of the honorable member from Michigan, who says that all the world knows there is a treaty, I might say all the world knows, too, exactly what the treaty is, for the details are as well known as the principal fact. I feel, sir, as I said, a new embarrassment. On the events that have occurred here within three weeks: political friends to some extent differ, and that goes nearer to my heart than any dart that political adversaries could direct.

The war is odious. Generally speaking, taking the whole country together, the war is odious in a high degree. The country is distressed. A treaty has been offered. It has been here and it has been sent back. Now, I feel, sir, that there has been manifested throughout the country a very strong desire, for the sake of peace, that this treaty, or any treaty, should be ratified. The business of the country is disorganized and distressed. Men know not what to calculate upon. The occupations of life are embarrassed. The finances of individuals, as well as of the country are much deranged; the circumstances of individuals placing them in great exigency of immediate relief: and there has come up a strong impression in favor of any treaty on any terms, if it will bring peace. Now, sir, I am not for any treaty on any terms, though it bring peace. In my judgment, with entire diffidence therein, and entire deference to the better judgment of others, I think that this indiscriminate demand of peace in any circumstances and on any terms, is either an effusion of ecstatic delight at the prospect of getting rid of an abominated war; or else it is the result of a feeling for which I have not so much respect--that we are to take this, whatever it may be; or I will rather say, that we are to take whatever may be offered, lest our masters should give us harder terms.

It is either the effusion of joy at the prospect of putting an end to the war, or else that men's resolution cools. I believe, sir, that the press on all sides, with very few exceptions--perhaps uniting for once--have for the last three weeks pressed the Senate, by their daily counsels and advice, to take the treaty whatever it may be. All these considerations which seem to me to spring from the first impulse and not from the sober second thought of the people, appear to be designed--I will not say designed, but calculated, as they have been calculated--to press forward the councils of the Senate; and to induce these councils to take any bit of parchment, or any bit of paper which could be called or concluded to be a treaty--to clench it, and confirm it, with our eyes blindfolded? No, sir--with our eyes open, seeing all the future!

On these subjects, sir, to the extent to which it may be proper for me to discuss them, I wish to declare my sentiments once for all; not going back to the origin of the war--not re-examining orders of the Executive--not pausing to consider, as my honorable friend from Georgia has done, the various stages in the progress of the campaigns, in which it might seem to have been, and I think he has proved that it was, the duty of the Executive to consider the propriety of arresting the war--without attempting any of this sort of discussion upon the case, I nevertheless desire to express my opinions upon the state of the country--upon the further prosecution of the war--and upon that most important, and, if not vital, most interesting question, the revenue and the ability of the country in the present existing legislation of Congress to supply the public demands. An understanding however, was entered into yesterday, to which I was a party, that the question upon the final passage of this bill should be taken to day. I do not propose to depart from that understanding. If I had strength, which I have not, and health, which I have not, there is not time, without pushing the Senate into a very late session, to say what I wish to say. I will therefore, with the permission of the Senate-- and I hope not without the concurrence of the honorable member who is at the head of the Finance Committee, postpone what I have further to say upon this subject, until the early part of next week, when I understand the Loan Bill will be before the Senate. This measure is to raise men--that measure is to pay them. The object, therefore, of both is one--the further prosecution of the war in Mexico. What I say then, may as well be said appropriately on one bill as the other, and therefore I shall not now detain the Senate, but if an opportunity should be offered, upon the earliest introduction of the Loan Bill, I shall avail myself of it.