ence to the legitimate powers of the govern-
ment.
But that is not all he said. Mr. Everett
lens you that even at an earlier period he
(Jefferson) uttered the same sentiments :
''He urged, in 1786, the establishment of a
naval force by the Congress of the confedera-
tion, as a means of chastising the Barbary
Powers, and because it would furnish the
Federal head 'with the safest of all instruments
of coercion over delinquent members,'
precisely the use to which the Government of
the United States is now employing the naval
power of the country. Writing on the same
subject to Mr. Monroe a month afterwards,
in reply to the objection that there is no
money in the treasury, Mr. Thomas Jefferson
says: 'there never will be any money in the
treasury till the confederacy shows it teeth.
The States must see the rod; perhaps it must be
felt by some of them.' "
This is Thomas Jefferson, quoted all around
the House here as authority for the doctrine
of State rights, against the extraordinary
power of coercion, and in favor of the right
of any State lo secede at any moment when,
under its own interpretation, its so-called
sovereignty was invaded by the General Gov-
ernment,
And what does Mr. Madison say? I
have a book here entitled "Sectional
Controversy," which is a very valuable
book to the other side of the House; I
suppose they are in possession of it. It is
a collation and compilation of all the
sentiments that ever have been uttered by
any statesman in favor of State rights; a
compilation made, too, by a northern man—
a northern man with southern principles—a
Mr. William Chauncey Fowler, L.L.D., of
New York. But there are some things in it
which he has not been exactly able to exclude,
which I will read for the information of this
Convention, as bearing upon this theory of
the right of secession; for the whole theory
of argument upon the other side here has
been defensive of secession. We have sat
here and listened to debates which I am
sure must have proven to my friend from
Somerset, (Mr. Jones,) the total absence of
any necessity for any amendment to our bill
of rights, to preserve freedom of speech.
That amendment was entirely unnecessary,
so far as anything here was concerned; for,
as I am glad to see, the largest liberty of
speech has been allowed here.
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. [In his seat.] With-
in an hour, or an hour and a quarter.
Mr. RIDGELY. In a letter which Mr. Madi-
son wrote in 1833, he uses the following lan-.
guage—
Mr. MILLER. From what page is the gen-
tleman reading?
Mr. RIDGELY. I read from page 217. I
see the gentleman has a copy of this book
It has furnished the texts for all the argu. |
ments made here by the gentlemen on the
I other side, and has been a very valuable aux-
iliary to them. Indeed, one of my particular
friends in this Convention, on the other side,
expressed to me this morning his regret that
he bad only lately discovered the existence of
this book; he much regretted that be had
' not discovered it earlier.
In a letter written in 1833, Mr. Madison
uses the following language :
"It surely does not follow from the fact
that the States, or rather the people embodied
in them, having, as parties to the constitu-
tional compact, no tribunal above them, that
in controverted meanings of the compact a
minority of the parties can rightfully decide
against the majority, still less that a single
party can at will withdraw itself altogether from
its compact with the rest."
That is the sentiment uttered in 1833 by
Mr. Madison, who has been quoted all around
the House here, from the very first speech
made by the honorable gentleman from Prince
George's (Mr. Clarke.) The Madison papers
and the Federalist have been quoted by our
Southern friends as authority, conclusive,
overwhelming authority. Now, I confess
that while I have great veneration for these
names, yet I have not the fullest faith, not at
least what is scripturally called " saving
faith," in the utterances of these great men,
for the reason that the oracles have not al-
ways taught the same doctrine, have not al-
ways spoken the same voice. They have,
like other men, been at times on both sides
of the same question. I therefore take all
their utterances with many grains of allow-
ance.
This very same Mr. Madison, as all will
remember, during the first Congress, by his
powerful and extraordinary influence defeated
Mr. Hamilton upon the United States Bank
question—upon the question of the constitu-
tional power of the Government to create a
corporation. Mr. Madison defied and chal-
lenged the friends of a United States Bank to
produce power in the Constitution to authorize
Congress to create a corporation; and
was successful in defeating the attempt to
charter the first United States Bank. But
the same James Madison, when afterwards
President of the United States, signed the
charter for the Bank of the United States,
thus occupying ground on both sides of that
question. And other great men have done
the same thing.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. Everett has said exactly
the opposite of the article the gentleman has
read here.
Mr. RIDGELY. That may be another proof,
then, of what I say: that mere opinion per se,
is unsatisfactory authority, especially when
such opinion has not been consistent; and
instead of being controlled by mere opinions,
I address myself and my judgment to the
reasons upon which men base their opinions , |
