 |
| Edward Livingston |
 |
| John Adams, apparently not the only president to not understand | the Constitution |
|
|
I recently stumbled upon a speech given by Edward Livingston in the House of Representatives during the debate on the Alien Bill in 1798 in the Evans Collection of Early American Imprints. This was part of the famous Alien and Sedition Acts signed into law by John Adams during the undeclared war with France. Federalists were seeing enemies everywhere and were intent on dealing with them regardless of what the law said. As a Democratic Republican representing New York's 2nd District, Livingston was opposed to the bills altogether. He had been away from Congress and arrived back just in time to hear the third reading of the bill and after speaking against the bill, voted against it. All four bills that made up the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed anyway. Three were repealed shortly thereafter when Thomas Jefferson became president. The fourth, The Alien Enemies Act, is technically still in effect having most infamously been used by Franklin Roosevelt to inter Japanese living in America during World War II
What I found interesting about the speech is that it fits incredibly well into the debate about the recent executive order to come out of the White House. This is an example of the old cliche that history repeats itself. Its also a lesson in what can happen when the government acts out of fear instead of humanity, compassion and good sense.
I've pulled a few of my favorite quotes out of the text below. The whole speech is below those.
"We must legislate upon facts, not on surmises—we
must have evidence, not vague suspicions, if we mean to legislate with
prudence"
 |
| Franklin Roosevelt |
|
" the crime is "exciting the suspicions of the president," but no
man can tell what conduct will avoid that suspicion—a careless word,
perhaps misrepresented or never spoken, may be sufficient evidence, a
look may destroy, an idle gesture may insure punishment, no innocence
can protect—no circumspection can avoid the jealousy of
suspicion—surrounded by spies, informers and all that infamous herd
which fatten under laws like this."
"will the PEOPLE SUBMIT to our
unauthorized acts? will the states sanction our usurped power? Sir, they
ought not to submit—they would deserve the chains which these measures
are forging for them, if they did not resist. For let no man vainly
imagine that the evil is to stop here, that a few unprotected aliens
only are to be affected by this inquisitorial power; the same arguments
which enforce those provisions against aliens, apply with equal
strength to enacting them in the case of citizens"
"the
people of America, sir, though watchful against foreign aggression are
not careless of domestic encroachment; they are as jealous, sir, of
their liberties at home, as of the power and prosperity of their country
abroad: they will awake to a sense of their danger; do not let us
flatter ourselves then that these measures will be unobserved or
disregarded. Do not let us be told, sir, that we excite a fervour
against foreign aggression, only to establish tyranny at home; that,
like the arch traitor, we cry
"Hail, Columbia," at the moment we are betraying her to destruction: that we sing out
"happy land," when we are plunging it in ruin or disgrace: and that we are absurd enough to call our∣selves
"free and enlightened,"
while we advocate principles that would have disgraced the age of
Gothic barbarity, and establish a code compared to which the ordeal is
wise, and the trial by battle is merciful and just."
 |
| Jefferson, repealed 75% of the Alien and Sedition Acts |
Speech of Edward Livingston.
MR. LIVINGSTON said he esteemed it one of the most fortunate
occurrences of his life, that after an inevitable absence from his seat
in that house, he had arrived in time to express his dissent to the
passage of the bill. It would have been a source of eternal regret, and
the keenest remorse, if any private affairs, however urgent, any
domestic concerns, however interesting, had deprived him of the
opportunity he was then about to use, of stating his objections, and
recording his vote against an act which he believed was in direct
violation of the constitution; and marked with every characteristic of
the most odious despotism.
On my arrival, sir, mr. L. said, I enquired what subject occupied the
attention of the house; and being told it was the alien bill, I
directed the printed copy to be brought to me, but to my great surprise
seven or eight copies of different acts on the same subject were put in
my hands—among them it was difficult (so strongly were they marked by
the same family features), to dis∣cover the individual bill then under
discussion. This circumstance give me a suspicion that the principles of
the measures were erroneous—Truth marches directly to its end by a
single undeviating path—Error is either undetermined on its object, or
pursues it through a thousand winding ways—the multiplicity of
propositions therefore to attain the same general but doubtful end, led
me to suspect that neither the object nor the means proposed to attain
it were proper or necessary. These surmises were confirmed by a more
minute examination of the act—In the construction of statutes, it was a
received rule to examine what were the state of things when it was
passed, and what were the evils it was in∣tended to remedy—as these
circumstances would be applied
in
the construction of the law, it might be well to examine them minutely
in framing it—the state of things, if we are to judge from the
complexion of the bill, must be that a number of aliens, enjoying the
protection of our government, were plotting its destruction—that they
are engaged in treasonable machinations against a people who have given
them an asylum and support, and that no provision is found to provide
for their expulsion and punishment. If these things are so and no remedy
exists for the evil, one ought speedily to be provided, but even then
it must be a remedy that is consistent with the constitution under which
we act—for as by that instrument, all powers not expressly given by it
to the union, are reserved by the states—it follows that unless an
express authority can be found, vesting us with the power, be the evil
never so great it can only be remedied by the several states who have
never delegated the authority to congress—but this point will be
presently examined, and it will not be a difficult task to shew that the
provisions of this bill are not only unauthorised by the constitution,
but are in direct violation of its fundamental principles, and
contradictory to some of its most express prohibitions; at present it is
only necessary to ask whether the state of things contemplated by the
bill have any existence—We must legislate upon facts, not on surmises—we
must have evidence, not vague suspicions, if we mean to legislate with
prudence—What facts have been produced? What evidence had been
submitted to the house? I have heard, sir, of none—but if evidence of
facts could not be pro∣cured, at least it might have been expected that
reason∣able cause of suspicion should be shewn—here again gentlemen were
at fault—they could not shew even a
suspicion why these aliens ought to be suspected.
We have, indeed, been told that the fate of Venice, Switzerland, and
Batavia, was produced by the interference of foreigners. But, the
instances were unfortunate—be∣cause all those powers had been overcome
by foreign force, or divided by domestic faction, not by aliens who
resided among them; and if any instruction was to be gained from those
republics, it would be that we ought to banish not the aliens but all
those
who did not approve the executive
this I
〈…〉were
not ready to own—but if this measure prevailed, I shall not think the
other remote; but if it had been proved that these governments were
destroyed by the conspiracies of aliens, it yet remains to shew that we
are in the same situation; or that any such plots have been detected or
are even reasonably suspected here. Nothing of this kind has been yet
done. A modern Theseus, indeed, has told us he has procured a clue
that
enable him to penetrate the labyrinth and destroy this monster of
sedition. Who the fair Ariadne is who kindly gave him the ball he has
not revealed: nor though several days have elapsed since he undertook
the adventure, has he yet told where the monster lurks. No evidence then
being produced, we have a right to say that none exists, and yet we are
about to sanction a most important act, and on what grounds? our
individual suspicions, our private fears, our over-heated imaginations.
Seeing nothing to excite those suspicions, and not feeling those fears,
I could not give my assent to the bill, even if I did not feel a
superior obligation to reject it on other grounds. As far as my own
observation goes, I have seen nothing like the state of things
contemplated by the bill. Most of the aliens I have seen were either
triumphant Englishmen, or Frenchmen, with dejection in their
countenances and grief at their hearts, preparing to quit the country
and seek another asylum. But if these plots exist, if this treason is
apparent, if there are aliens guilty of the crimes that are ascribed to
them, an effectual remedy presents itself for the evil; we have already
wise laws, we have upright judges and vigilant magistrates, and there
is no necessity of arming the executive with the destructive power
proposed by the bill now on your table—the laws now in force are
competent to punish every treasonable or seditions attempt.
But grant, sir, what however has not been at all supported by fact,
grant that these fears are not visionary, that the dangers are imminent
and that no existing law is sufficient to avert them; let us examine
whether the provisions of the bill are conformable to the principles of
the constitution: if it should be found to
contravene
them, I trust it will lose many of its present supporters; but if not
only contrary to the general spirit and principles of the constitution,
it should also be found diametrically opposite to its most express
prohibitions, I cannot doubt that it would be rejected with that
indignant decision which our duty to our country, and our sacred oath
demands.
The first section provides that it shall be lawful for the President, "to order all such aliens as he shall
judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, or shall have
reasonable ground to suspect are concerned in any
treasonable or secret machinations against the goverment thereof, to depart out of the United States, in such time as shall be expressed in such order."
Our goverment, sir, is founded on the establishment of those
principles which constitute the difference be∣tween a free constitution,
and a despotic power; a distribution of the legislative, executive and
judiciary powers, into special hands, a distribution, strongly marked
in three first and great divisions of the constitution—by first—all
legislative power is given to Congress, the second vests all executive
functions in the president, and the third declares that the judiciary
power shall be exercised by the supreme and inferior courts; here then
is a division, of the govermental powers strongly marked, decisively
pronounced, and every act of one or all of the branches that tends to
confound these powers, or alter this arrangement must be destructive of
the constitution: examine then, sir, the bill on your table, and
declare whether the few lines I have repeated from the first section do
not confound these fundamental powers of the government, vest them all
in the most unqualified terms in one hand, and thus subvert the basis on
which our liberties rest.
Legislative power prescribes the rule of action; the judiciary
applies that general rule to particular cases, and it is the province of
the executive to see that the laws are carried into full effect. In all
free goverments these powers are exercised by different men, and their
union in the same hand is the peculiar characteristic of despotism: if
the same power that makes the law can construe it to suit his interest
and apply it to
gratify
his vengance, if he can go further, and execute according to his own
passions, the judgment which he, himself, has pronounced upon his own
construction, of laws, which he alone has made, what other features are
wanted to complete the picture of tyrany; yet all
this and more
is proposed to be done by this act; by it the president alone, is
empowered to make the law, to fix in his own mind, what acts, what words
what thoughts or looks, shall constitute the crime contemplated by the
bill; that is the crime of being "suspected to be dangerous to the peace
and safety of the United States." He is not only authorized to make
this law, for his, own conduct, but to vary it at pleasure, as every
gust of passion, every cloud of suspicion, shall agitate or darken his
mind; the same power that formed the law then applies it to the guilty
or innocent victim whom his own suspicions or the secret whisper of a
spy have designated as its object; the president then having made the
law, the president having considered and applied it, the same president
is by the bill, authorized to execute his sentence, in case of
disobedience, by imprisonment,
during his pleasure.
This, then comes completely within the definition of despotism, and
uni∣on of legislative, executive, and judicial powers. But this bill,
sir, does not stop here, its provisions are a refinement upon despotism
and present an image of the most fearful tyranny—Even in despotisms,
though the monarch legislates, judges and executes, yet he legislates
openly, his laws though oppressive, are known, they precede the offence,
and every man who chooses may avoid the penalties of disobedience. Yet
he judges and executes by proxy, and his present interest or passions
do not inflame the mind of his deputy.
But here the law is closely concealed in the same mind that gives it
birth—the crime is "exciting the suspicions of the president," but no
man can tell what conduct will avoid that suspicion—a careless word,
perhaps misrepresented or never spoken, may be sufficient evidence, a
look may destroy, an idle gesture may insure punishment, no innocence
can protect—no circumspection can avoid the jealousy of
suspicion—surrounded by spies, informers and all that infamous herd
which fatten under laws like this. The unfortunate
stranger
will never know either of the law, of the accusation or of the judgment
until the moment it is put into execution—he will detest your tyranny,
and
from a land of delators, inquisitions and spies.
This,
〈…〉 the detestable contrivance of the
〈…〉 the table of their laws
high that few could read them; a tall man, however, might reach, a
short one might climb and learn their contents, but here is the law is
equally in∣accessible to high and low; safely concealed in the breast of
its author, no industry or caution can penetrate this recess and
attain a knowlege of its provisions, nor even if they could, as the rule
is not permanent would it at all avail.
Having shewn that this act is at war with the fundamental principles
of our government, I might stop here in the certain hope, of its
rejection—But I can do more; unless we are resolved to pervert the
meaning of terms, I can shew that the constitution has endeavoured to
"make its surety doubly sure, and take a bond of fate!" by several
express prohibitions of measures like that you now contemplate. One of
these is contained in the 9th section of the first article, it is at the
head of the articles which restrict the powers of Congress, and
declares "that the
migration or importation
of such persons, as any of the states, shall think proper to omit,
shall not be prohibited prior to the year 1808" Now, sir, where is the
difference between a power to prevent the arrival of aliens and a power
to send them away as soon as they shall arrive? to me they appear
precisely the same. The constitution expressly says, that congress
shall not do this, and yet congress are about to delegate this
prohibited power, and say, that the president may excercise it as often
as his pleasure may direct. I am informed that an answer has been
attempted to this argument, by saying, that the article, though it
speaks of
"persons." only relates to
slaves? But a conclusive reply to this answer may be drawn from the
words of the section, it speaks of migration and importation; if it
related only to slaves,
"importation," would have been sufficient; but how can the other word apply to slaves; migration is a voluntary change of a country; but who
ever
heard of a migration of slaves! the truth is, both words have their
appropriate meaning, and even ex∣tended to secure the interests of
different quarters of the union? The middle states wished to secure
themselves against any laws that might impede the emigration of
settlers; the southern states did not like to be prohibited in the
importation of slaves, and so jealous were they of this provision, that
the fifth article was introduced to declare that the constitution shall
not be a∣mended so as to do it away.
But even admit the absurdity, that the word, "migration" has no
meaning, or one foreign to its usual acceptation, and that the article
relates only to slaves; Even this sacrifice of common sense will not
help gentlemen out of their dilemma—slaves probably always, but
certainly on their first importation, are
aliens,
many people think they are always "dangerous to the peace and safety of
the United States!" if the president should be of this opinion, he not
only can, but by the terms of this law, is obliged to order them off;
for the act creates an obligation on him to send away all such
aliens
as he shall judge dangerous to the peace or safety of the United
States. Thus, according to the most favourable construction, every
proprietor of this species of property, holds it at the will and
pleasure of the president—and this, too, in defiance of the only
article of the constitution, that is declared to be
unalterable.—But
let us, sir, for a moment, if it be possible, let us imagine that a
constitution, founded on a division of powers, into three hands, may be
preserved, although all these powers should be surrendered into one; let
us imagine, if we can, that the states intended to re∣strict the
general government, from preventing the arrival of persons whom they
were yet willing to suffer that same general goverment to ship off as
soon as they should arrive: grant all this; and they will be as far from
establishing the constitutionality of the bill, as they were at the
first moment it was proposed—for in the 3d article it is provided, that
all "judicial power shall be vested in the supreme and inferior courts,"
that the trial of "all crimes shall be by jury," except in case of
impeachment; and in the 7th and 8th amendments, provision is repeated
and enforced by
others
this which declare, that "no man shall be held to answer for a capital
or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment of a grand jury"
that "in all
criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and
public trial, by an impartial
jury
of the state and district where the crime shall have been committed,
which district shall have been previously ascertained by law; and to be
informed of the
nature and
cause of the accusation, to be
confronted
with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for
obtaining witnesses in his favour, and to have the assistance of council
for his defence"—Now, sir, what minute article in these several
provisions of the constitution is there that is not violated by this
bill? all the bulwarks which it opposed to encroachments on personal
liberty, fall before this engine of oppression.
Judiciary power is taken from
courts, and given to the executive, the previous safeguard of a
presentment by a grand inquest is removed, the trial by jury is
abolished: the "
public trial required
by the constitution is changed into a secret and worse than
inquisitorial tribunal: instead of giving "information of the nature
and cause of the accusation," the criminal, alike ignorant of his
offence and the danger to which he is exposed, never hears of either
until the judgment is passed, and the sentence is executed: instead of
being
"confronted with his accusers,"
he is kept alike ignorant of their names and their existence, and even
the forms of a trial being dispensed with, it would be a mockery to
talk of "process for witnesses," or the "assistance of council for
defence," thus are all the barriers which the wisdom and humanity of
our country had placed between accused innocence and oppressive power
at once forced and broke down. Not a vestige even of their form remains.
No indictment, no jury, no trial—no public procedure, no statement of
the accusation; no examination of the witnesses in its support. No
council for defence—all is darkness, silence, mystery, and suspicion.
But as if this were not enough; the unfortunate victims of this law are
told in the next section that if they can convince the president that
his suspicions are unfounded, he may,
if he pleases, give them a license to stay—but how re∣move his suspicions when they know not on what act
they
were founded? how take proof to convince him, when he is not bound to
furnish that on which he proceeds; miserable mockery of justice!
appoint an arbitrary judge armed with legislative and executive powers
added to his own! let him condemn the unheard, the unaccused object of
his suspicion, and then to cover the injustice of the scene, gravely
tell him, you ought not to complain, you need only disprove facts that
you have never heard, remove suspicions that have never been
communicated to you, it will be easy to convince your judge, whom you
shall not approach, that he is tyrannical and unjust, and when you have
done this, we give him the power he had before, to pardon you if he
pleases.
So obviously do the constitutional objections present themselves,
that their existence cannot be denied, and two wretched subterfuges are
resorted to, to remove them out of sight. First, it is said, the bill
does not contemplate the
punishment of any
crime,
and therefore, the provisions in the constitution, relative to criminal
proceedings and judiciary powers do not apply. But have the gentlemen
who reason thus, read the bill, or is every thing forgotton in our
zealous hurry to pass it? What are the offences upon which it is to
operate? Not only the offence of being "suspected to be dangerous to the
peace and safety of the United States," but also that of being
"concerned in any
treasonable or secret machinations against the
government thereof." And this we are told is no
crime! a
treasonable
machination against the government, is not the subject of criminal
jurisprudence! good heaven, to what absurdities does an over zealous
attachment to particular measures lead us! in order to punish a
particular act, we are forced to say, that treason is no crime, and
plotting against our government is no offence. And to support this fine
hypothesis, we are obliged to plunge deeper in absurdity and say, that
as the acts spoken of in the bill, are no crimes; so the penalty
contained in it is no
punishment, it is only a
prevention;
that is to say, we invite strangers to come among us, we declare
solemnly that government shall not have the power to prevent them—we
entice them over by delusive prospects of advantage, in many parts of
the union we permit them to hold lands, and give
them
other advantages, while they are waiting for the period at which we
have promised a full participation of all our rights—an unfortunate
stranger, disgusted with tyranny at home, thinks he shall find freedom
here, he accepts your conditions, he puts faith in your promises, he
rests his whole property in your hands, he has dissolved his former
connections and made your country his own. But while he is patiently
waiting the expiration of the period that is to crown the work, and
entitles him to all the rights of a citizen, the tale of a domestic spy,
or the calumny of a secret enemy draws on him the suspicions of the
president—and, unheard, he is ordered to quit the spot which he
solicited for his retreat, the country he had chosen for his own,
perhaps the family which was his only consolation in life, he is ordered
to re∣tire to a country whose government irritated by his renunciation
of its authority, will receive only to punish him—and all this we are
seriously told is
no punishment.
 |
| The deal that FDR gave these people of Japanese decent |
Again we are told, that the constitutional compact was made between
citizens only; and that therefore, its provisions were not intended to
extend to
aliens, and that this act
operating only on there, is therefore not forbidden by the constitution.
But unfortunately, neither common law, common justice, nor the
practice of any civilized nation will permit this distinction: It is an
acknowledged principle of the common law, the authority of which is
established here, that alien friends (and permit me to observe that they
are such only, whom we contemplate by this bill, for we have another
before us, to send off alien enemies), residing among us, are entitled
to the protection of our laws. And that during their residence they owe a
temporary allegiance to our government. If they are accused of
violating this allegiance, the same laws that interpose in the case of a
citizen, must determine the truth of the accusation, and if found
guilty they are liable to the same punishment; this rule is consonant
to the principles of common justice; for who would ever resort to
another country, if he alone was marked out as the object of arbitrary
power? It is equally unfortunate too for this argument, that the
constitution expressly excludes any idea of this distinction, it speaks
of all "judicial power"—"all trials for crimes, all "criminal
prosecutions"—all "persons accused." No distinction between citizen and
alien, between high or low; friends or opposers of the executive power,
republican and royalist. All, all are entitled to the same equal
distribution of justice, to the same humane provisions to protect their
innocence—all are liable to the same punishment that awaits their guilt.
How comes it too if then the constitutional provisions were intended
for the safety of the citizen only, that our courts
uniformly
extend them to all, and that we never heard it enquired whether the
accused is a citizen before we give him a public trial by jury.
So manifest do these violations of the constitution ap∣pear to me, so
futile the arguments in their defence, that they press seriously upon
my mind and sink it even to despondency—they have been so glaring to my
understanding, that I felt it my duty to speak of them in a manner that
may perhaps give offence to men whom I esteem and who seem to think
differently on that subject—none, however, I can assure them is
intended.
I have seen measures carried in this house which I thought militated
against the spirit of the constitution, but never before have I been
witness to so open, so wan∣ton, and undisguised an attack. I have now
done, sir, with the act and come to consider the consequences of its
operation.
One of the most serious has been anticipated when I described the
blow it would give to the constitution of our country—we should
cautiously beware of the first act of violation; habituated to over leap
its bounds, we become familiarized to the guilt and disregard the
danger of a second offence—until proceeding from one unauthorized act to
another,
at length throw of all the
restraints which our constitution has imposed; and very soon not even
the semblance of its forms will re∣main.
But if regardless of our duty as citizens, and our solem obligation
as representatives, regardless of the rights of our constituents—of
their opinion and that of posterity—regardless of every sanction, human
and divine—if
we are ready to violate
the constitution we have sworn to defend—will the PEOPLE SUBMIT to our
unauthorized acts? will the states sanction our usurped power? Sir, they
ought not to submit—they would deserve the chains which these measures
are forging for them, if they did not resist. For let no man vainly
imagine that the evil is to stop here, that a few unprotected aliens
only are to be affected by this inquisitorial power; the same arguments
which enforce those provisions against aliens, apply with equal
strength to enacting them in the case of citizens: the citizen has no
other protection for his personal security that I know, against laws
like this, than the humane provisions I have cited
from the constitution: but all these apply in common to the citizen and the stranger:
"All crimes" are to be tried by jury—"No
person" shall be held to answer unless on presentment: in all
criminal prosecutions the
"accused"
is to have a public trial: the "accused" is to be informed of the
nature of the charge: to be confronted with the witnesses against him.
May have process to en∣force the appearance of those in his favour, and
is to be allowed council for his defence—Unless, therefore, we can
believe that
treasonable machinations and the other offences described in the bill are not
crimes—that an alien is not a
person—and that one charged with treasonable practices is not
"accused"—unless
we can believe all this, in contradiction to our own understandings, to
received opinions and the uniform practice of our courts, we must allow
that all these provisions extend equally to aliens and natives, and
that the citizen has no other security for his personal safety than is
extended to the stranger, who is within his gates; if, therefore, this
security is violated in one instance, what pledge have we that it will
not in the other? The same plea of necessity will justify both: either
the offences described in the act are crimes, or they are not; if they
are, then all the humane provisions of the constitution forbid the mode
of punishing or preventing them equally as relates to aliens and
citizens. If they are not crimes, then the citizen has no more safety
by the constitution than the alien has; for all those provisions apply
only to
crimes. So that in either
event, the citizen has the same reason to expect a similar law to the
one now before you; which subjects his person to the uncontrolled
despotism of a single man. You have already been told of plots,
conspiracies—and all the frightful images that were necessary to keep up
the present system of terror and alarm were presented to you: but who
were implicated by these dark hints—these mysterious allusions?—they
were our own citizens, sir, not aliens: if there is then any necessity
for the system now proposed, it is more necessary to be enforced against
our own citizens, than against strangers; and I have no doubt that
either in this, or some other shape they will be attempted. I now ask,
sir, whether the people of America are prepared for this? Whether they
are willing to part with all the means which the wisdom of their
ancestors discovered; and their own caution so lately adopted to secure
the liberty of their persons? Whether they are ready to submit to
imprisonment, or exile, whenever suspicion, calumny or vengeance, shall
mark them for ruin? Are they base enough to be prepared for this? No,
sir, they will, I repeat it, they will resist this tyrannic system; the
people will oppose, the states will not submit to its operation: they
ought not to acquiesce, and I pray to God they never may. My opinions,
sir, on this subject are explicit, and I wish they may be known; they
are, that whenever our laws manifestly infringe the constitution under
which they were made, the people ought not to hesitate which they should
obey: if we exceed our powers, we become tyrants, and our acts have no
effect.
Thus,
sir, one of the first effects of measures such as this, if they should
not be acquiesced in, will be disaffection among the states, and
opposition among the people to your government; tumults, violence, and a
recurrence to first revolutionary principles. If they are submitted to,
the consequences will be worse—After such manifest violation of the
principles of our constitution, the form will not long be sacred;
presently every vestige of it will be lost and swallowed up in the gulph
of despotism—but should the evil proceed no further than the execution
of the present law, what a fearful picture will our country present—the
system of
espionage
established; the country will swarm with informers, spies, delators,
and all that odious reptile tribe that breed in the sunshine of despotic
power, that suck the blood of the unfortunate, and creep into the bosom
of sleeping innocence only to wake it with a burning wound—the hours of
the most unsuspecting confidence; the intimacies of friendship, or the
recesses of domestic retirement, afford no security: the companion whom
you most trust, the friend in whom you confide, the domestic who waits
in your chamber, are all tempted to betray your imprudence or guardless
follies; to misrepresent your words; to convey them, distorted by
calumny, to the secret tribunal where jealousy presides; where fear
officiates as accuser, and suspicion is the only evidence that is heard.
These, bad as they are, are not the only ill consequences of these
measures: among them we may reckon the loss of wealth, of population,
and of commerce. Gentlemen who support the bill, seemed to be aware of
this, when yesterday they introduced a clause to secure the property of
those who might be ordered to go off; they should have foreseen the
consequences of the steps they have been taking; it is now too late to
discover that large sums are drawing from the banks, that a great
capital is taken from commerce. It is ridiculous even to observe the
solicitude they shew to retain the wealth of these dangerous men, whose
persons they are so eager to get rid of; if they wish to retain it, it
must be by giving them security to their persons, and assuring them that
while they respect the laws, the laws will protect them from arbitrary
power; it must be, in short, by rejecting the bill on your table. I
might mention many other inferior considerations: but I ought, sir,
rather to intreat the pardon of the house, for having touched on this;
compared to the breach of our constitution, and the establishment of
arbitrary power, every other topic is trifling; arguments of convenience
sink into nothing; the preservation of wealth, the interests of
commerce, however weighty on other occasions, here lose their
importance: When the fundamental principles of freedom are in danger,
we are tempted to borrow the impressive language of a foreign speaker,
and exclaim—"Perish our commerce, let our constitution live:"—Perish our
riches, let our freedom live—this, sir, would be the sentiment of every
American, were the alternative between submission and wealth; but
here, sir, it is proposed to destroy our wealth, in order to
our commerce. Not in
〈…〉 but to break it—not to secure
〈…〉.
I have now done sir, but before I sit down let me intreat gentlemen
seriously reflect before they pronounce the decisive vote, that gives
the first open stab to the principles of our government. Our mistaken
zeal, like that of the patriarch of old, has bound the victim; it lies
at the foot of the altar; a sacrifice of the first born offspring of
freedom is proposed by those who gave it birth. The hand is already
raised to strike, and nothing I fear but the voice of Heaven can arrest
the impious blow.
Let not gentlemen flatter themselves that the fervour of the moment
can make the people insensible to these aggressions. It is an honest
noble warmth, produced by an indignant sense of injury. It will never, I
trust, be extinct, while there is a proper cause to excite it: but the
people of America, sir, though watchful against foreign aggression are
not careless of domestic encroachment; they are as jealous, sir, of
their liberties at home, as of the power and prosperity of their country
abroad: they will awake to a sense of their danger; do not let us
flatter ourselves then that these measures will be unobserved or
disregarded. Do not let us be told, sir, that we excite a fervour
against foreign aggression, only to establish tyranny at home; that,
like the arch traitor, we cry
"Hail, Columbia," at the moment we are betraying her to destruction: that we sing out
"happy land," when we are plunging it in ruin or disgrace: and that we are absurd enough to call our∣selves
"free and enlightened,"
while we advocate principles that would have disgraced the age of
Gothic barbarity, and establish a code compared to which the ordeal is
wise, and the trial by battle is merciful and just.
Richard
Montgomery was married to Chancellor Livingston’s older sister, Janet. The two
men became close friends often spending time talking science, agriculture and
politics. Both had similar political leanings. Both were sent to New York to
guide New York in the early days of the war. Livingston was chosen to go to
Congress in Philadelphia while Montgomery remained in New York. With
Livingston’s influence, Montgomery was selected as a brigadier general in the
new army. On the last day of 1775 his friendship with Livingston came to a
sudden and rather violent end when he was struck by several grapeshot while
leading an assault on the city of Quebec.
