368 FINAL REMOVAL OF THE CHEROKEES. days. The wife of one, however, was an invalid and it was impossible for him to obey. This not being considered an excuse, he was again arrested and, in company with another prisoner, was confined in jail. Nine others who hastened to their assistance were arrested also, and the trial of the eleven men was heard before Judge Clayton and a jury. Counsel for the defence declared the law unconstitutional, but the judge dissented and bade the jury consider nothing but the guilt or innocence of the prisoners under the law as it existed. Hence the jury could render only a verdict of guilty, and a sentence of four years' imprisonment was imposed.* Having vindicated the majesty of the law, the governor sought to mitigate the severity of the sentence by offering to pardon the eleven men convicted, if they would give assurance never again to violate the law. Nine of the prisoners did so, but two flatly refused and went to the penitentiary. These two then appealed to the United States Supreme Court and once more Georgia was summoned to appear, but she failed to do so. This time, however, the decision was against her, for the Court, * Sumner, Life of Jackson, pp. 181-182; Niles' Register, vol. xli., pp. 174-176. in March of 1832, declared her law of December 22, 1830, to be unconstitutional, and the State court was directed to reverse its judgment and free the prisoners.* This the Georgia judge refused to do, though after a little more than a year of confinement the prisoners were pardoned.‡ The fate of the Cherokees was now sealed. The nation was split in twain by rival factions, those who were willing to migrate being led by John Ringe, while those who determined to stay were led by John Ross. Finally, in 1835, a treaty was made with the Ringe party by which the remaining Cherokee country was ceded, in return for which the Indians received $5,000,000 and a tract of land beyond the Mississippi.|| The Ross faction still refused to go, but in May of 1838, General Scott appeared and directed the Indians to be ready within a month. In December of that year the last of the Cherokees began their march for Indian territory.§ *Von Holst, Constitutional and Political History, vol. i., p. 457; Niles' Register, vol. xlii., pp. 24, 40-56. For the decision see Peters, Supreme Court Reports, vol. vi., pp. 521–579. † Niles' Register, vol. xlii., p. 78. ‡ Sumner, Life of Jackson, p. 182; Niles' Register, xliv., pp. 359-360. || MacDonald, Jacksonian Democracy, p. 179. § McMaster, vol. vi., pp. 48-51; Sumner, Life of Jackson, pp. 182-183. SPEECHES OF DRAYTON AND HAYNE, 369 CHAPTER III. 1830-1832. NULLIFICATION, THE TARIFF AND THE BANK. Drayton's and Hayne's nullification speeches - Action of the South Carolina legislature — The attitude of other States - Jackson's message to Congress of December 6, 1830- Inaction of that body - Judge Peck's impeachment Jackson's letter on nullification - His message of December 6, 1831 The tariff of 1832Jackson's veto of the bank charter - Failure of Congress to pass the measure. When Congress adjourned in the summer of 1830 the members departed for their homes to engage in the coming election of representatives for the Twenty-Second Congress. Public dinners were given to candidates or distinguished men at which topics of the hour were discussed in toasts and speeches. The most noteworthy of these dinners was given to Robert Y. Hayne and William William Drayton at Charleston. The latter was opposed to the tariff and to internal improvements, but could not be ranked as a nullifier, for he had stated that, with the exception of the tariff, nothing was more to be deplored than the separation of South Carolina from the Union. He said he could see no great difference between the abrogation of a law of Congress by a State and the withdrawal of that State from the Union.""* "I am not an advocate of passive obedience and non-resistance. * A crisis might arise when the bonds of the union ought to be broken. The right of the State to secede from the union, I unqualifiedly concede; but so long as she belongs to it, if she be not bound by its laws, the monstrous anomalies would exist of Hunt, Life of Calhoun, p. 139. a government whose acts were not obligatory upon its citizens and of a state constituting one of the members of the union whilst denying the authority of its laws. * I would not recommend silence and inactivity amidst the wrongs with which we are afflicted. What can constitutionally be done by the legis lature ought to be done by it [but] should the law we complain of remain unrepealed upon our statute book, we should then enquire whether a recurrence to the remedy I would not be worse than the malady which it professes to For my own part, I feel no hesitation in avowing that I should regard the separation of South Carolina from the union as incalculably more to be deplored than the exist ence of the law which we condemn." * cure. * Hayne was troubled by no such scruples. He re-asserted the doctrines expressed by him on the floor of Congress and said that in case of a palpable, deliberate, and dangerous abuse of power by the Federal government contrary to the terms of the compact between the States, the States had the right to interfere to arrest the progress of the evil. It was simply necessary to decide upon the mode of redress to be adopted, if a case arose to justify the application of his principles.t *The entire speech is in Niles' Register, vol. xxxviii., pp. 375-376. † Ibid, pp. 376-380. 370 ACTION OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA LEGISLATURE. When the election drew near, the question of the expediency of secession seemed to be uppermost in the discussions by the candidates. The right to quit the Union and the necessity of doing so were much debated by the voters. It was said that if the people of the State would annul the tariff laws and declare the Union dissolved, unless the tariff was repealed before March 1, 1831, or at least reduced to the rates of 1816, the system of robbery and oppression would at once be stopped. There was no question as to her right to secede, and the only question was whether the oppressions heaped upon her were sufficient to justify such a step.* A meeting of citizens at Columbia urged that a State convention be held to take the matter under consideration.t It required a two-thirds vote in each branch of the legislature to call a convention. At the election the nullifiers sent 11 out of 16 candidates to the legislature, ‡ but before the legislature met, it was decided to force Jackson to take his stand upon one side or the other. Joel R. Poinsett undertook to persuade the President to declare himself and prepared two letters with this object in view. One of these was sent on October 23, 1830, directly to the President, while the other was sent to a gentleman in Baltimore, who, as requested, sent it to another friend, who forwarded it to * Niles' Register, vol. xxxviii., p. 387. Ibid, vol. xxxix., pp. 3, 98. Ibid, p. 138. Jackson as a copy of a letter from a gentleman in Charleston." On the 26th, Jackson, in answering these letters, said that he supposed everyone knew that he was opposed to nullification, and that his toast at the Jefferson dinner was sufficient evidence of this fact. Poinsett and his friends therefore awaited the approaching session of the legislature with many misgivings. The nullifiers began the attack by refusing to reëlect William Smith to the United States Senate, because he had opposed the calling of the convention.* The State Senate Committee on Federal Relations reported a bill stating that the Federal Government had assumed and exercised powers not granted by the Constitution; that the legislature of the State had several times declared these laws to be an infringement on the rights of the States; and that it was the duty of the people to assemble in the State convention to determine upon the best manner of redress. The corresponding committee of the House found that the tariff acts were highly dangerous and oppressive violations of the Constitutional compact, and as no further redress of grievances could be expected, the people should assemble to deliberate on these matters. In the Senate, however, the anti-nullifiers succeeded in defeating the bill calling for the convention, but a set of resolutions, com * Niles' Register, pp. 233, 243-248, 250. † Jervey, Robert Y. Hayne and His Times, pp. 284-285. ACTION OF OTHER STATES; JACKSON'S MESSAGE. piled from the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, was then taken up, passed, and sent to the House, which likewise passed them.* Meanwhile the people Meanwhile the people began to make themselves heard. At Georgetown, South Carolina, the opinion was expressed that further forbearance might imply submission and that a bold front should be displayed toward the Federal Government.† On the other hand, the antinullifiers of Charleston said that the attempt to call a convention was the first movement in the general campaign toward nullifying the tariff laws, and that the nullification of a law of the United States by a single State was a revolutionary act. ‡ The Georgia Assembly, though expressing its opposition to disunion, stated that the tariff of 1828 was unjust to the South and ought to be modified, and the South Carolina House late in Decomber of 1830 adopted a similar resolution.§ The governor of Alabama urged the legislature to add nothing to the present excitement, but to appeal to Congress to redress their wrongs.¶ 371 On December 6, 1830,. the second session of the Twenty-first Congress convened, President Jackson sending his message the next day.* He reviewed the foreign relations at length, gave elaborate reasons for vetoing the lighthouse bill and the appropriation for the Louisville and Portland Canal, made an appeal for a law providing for the distribution of the surplus revenue when the National debt was extinguished, called attention also to the necessity of amending the Constitution in relation to the election of the President and Vice-President, urged that the tenure of office be limited to one term, made an attack on the bank and called for the revision of the tariff. He said that the effects of the existing law were doubtless overrated, both in its evils and its advantages. Regarding the bank, he spoke as follows: "It is thought practicable to organize such a bank, with the necessary officers, as a branch of the Treasury Department, based on the public and individual deposites, without power to make loans or purchase property, which shall remit the funds of the Government, and the expense of which may be paid, if thought advisable, by allowing its officers to sell bills of exchange to private individuals at a moderate premium. Not being a corporate body, having no stockholders, debtors, or property, and but few officers, opinion a sufficient corrective and condemned by their own sober reflections, the treasonable purpose will be relinquished, if it were ever serlously contemplated by any."— Colton, Private Correspondence of Henry Clay, vol. v., p. 360 et seq. See also Clay, Life of Clay, pp. 182-183. For the entire text see Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. ii., 500-529; Niles' Register, vol. xxxix., pp. 253-262; Register of Debates, vol. vii., app., pp. i-xiii; Benton, Abridgment, vol. xi., pp. 109-122. 372 THE WORK OF CONGRESS. it would not be obnoxious to the constitutional objections which are urged against the present bank; and having no means to operate on the hopes, fears, or interests, of large masses of the community, it would be shorn of the influence which makes that bank formidable. The States would be strengthened by having in their hands the means of furnishing the local paper currency through their own banks; while the Bank of the United States, though issuing no paper, would check the issues of the State banks by taking their notes in deposite, and for exchange, only so long as they continue to be redeemed with specie. In times of public emergency, the capacities of such an institution might be enlarged by legislative provisions." The measures suggested by the President as being of utmost importance found little favor in Congress. A bill reducing the duty on certain articles was introduced by the Committee on Ways and Means, but was refused consideration,† and a like fate met other bills instructing the same committee to inquire into the expediency of removing the duty on imported sugar‡ and instructing the committee to report a bill reducing duties on imports to a revenue basis when the national debt was extinguished. A joint resolution was introduced on December 29 to amend heard of more.* On February 2, 1831, when Benton asked permission to introduce a resolution to the effect that the charter of the bank should not be renewed, the Senate refused without debate, the vote being 20 to 23.t Jackson's supporters next turned their attention to what they considered an engine of oppression — the Federal judiciary. A motion was introduced in the House to instruct the Committee on the Judiciary to inquire into the expediency of amending the Constitution so that judges of the Supreme and lower courts should hold their offices for a term of years, but this motion was refused consideration by a large majority. On January 24, however, the committee introduced a bill to repeal the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of September 4, 1789, which provided that certain cases might be taken on appeal from the State courts to the Supreme Court by writ of error. This subject re ceived considerable attention from the State-righters, but finally on the Constitution regarding the ineligi- January 29, 1831, the bill was rejected bility of the President for a second term, but it was tabled and never Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. ii., pp. 528-529; Senate Journal, 21st Congress, 2d session, pp. 30-31. †The reports of the committees on manufac tures are in Niles' Register, vol. xxxix., pp. 396400, 408-412; Register of Debates, vol. vii., app., pp. lxii-lxvii. Register of Debates, vol. vii., p. 355, and app., p. lxxii. || Ibid, p. 450. by a vote of 138 to 59.|| Another expression of the feeling Register of Debates, vol. vii., pp. 23, 379. Ibid, vol. vii., pp. 46-78; Benton, Abridgment, vol xi., pp. 143-162, and Thirty Years' View, vol. i., chap. lvi. Register of Debates, vol. vii., p. 531; for the reports see ibid, app., pp. lxxvii-lxxxvi, and Niles' Register, vol. xxxix., pp. 412-421. || McMaster, vol. vi., pp. 58-61; Sumner, Life of Jackson, p. 173. For the debate see Register of Debates, vol. vii., pp. 532-535, 542; Benton, Abridgment, vol. xi., pp. 300-302, 304. |