made by the people who dwelt there, acting in their own sovereign capacity. This right was no new doctrine with General Cass. He recognized it when Michigan was a Territory - he referred to it and countenanced it in his article upon the Georgia difficulties, before alluded to, which we reproduce from the review of the decision of the Supreme Court, in 1832, heretofore given, as appears in the following extract. He observed:

"That the clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress 'to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property of the United States, refers to territorial rights, and grants no jurisdiction over persons.' Among other things I say: 'The power to dispose of, and make needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property of the United States, and the power to exercise general jurisdiction over persons upon it, are essentially different and independent. The former is general, and is given in the clause referred to; the latter is special, and is found in another clause, and is confined to the federal tract (the District of Columbia,) and to places purchased by consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings.'"

And it is worthy of note, that the views expressed in this letter have entered into and marked the legislation of Congress, and received the approbation of many eminent men of the country, who at first differed with him; thus evidencing the soundness of the position he assumed at the outset of the agitation on this subject.

The letter was read by several gentlemen, northern and southern, before its publication. Some of the latter requested the General to omit that part of it which asserted the right of the people of the territories to legislate for themselves on all questions relating to their internal policy. He declined to accede to this request, because of his unwillingness to misstate his views by omission. It did not comport with his self-respect to do so; although he was not unmindful that this doctrine might ever afterward be regarded an inexpiable offense by extreme southern men. At the same time he was aware that the position that Congress had no power to legislate upon the subject of slavery, would be equally unacceptable and unpardonable with extreme northern men.

The introduction of the Wilmot proviso into Congress created quite a stir among the politicians, without distinction of party, all through the southern States. The opinion soon became prevalent, that it was not slavery or involuntary bondage, but the power which the institution exercised in the political world, that induced people to pay it so much attention. It was a hot-bed of parties. On the platform of opposition, an anti-slavery party could exist in the free States; on the platform of self-defense, another party could exist in the slave States; whilst between these two extremes, another party still was always to be found, composed of the conservative mind of the entire country.

The prospect of territorial acquisitions awakened into new life all the elements of politics. Whether these vast domains should be bond or free, was, indeed, a magnificent question. Anti-slavery had opened the battle, and made a vital attack; it was no less than a pronunciamento of entire interdiction; the area of slavery was never, under any circumstances, to be extended. No matter if the blood of the slaveholder had watered the roads, valleys and mountains of Mexico; and southern armies, with chivalrous bravery, were first among the foremost to plant the standard of their country upon the walls of the imperial capital. This should not give their relatives and families at home, the right to emigrate with their property. Not so, thought they; and their statesmen echoed the sentiment in the halls of Congress.

Action for self-defense was necessary. A convention was sug gested, to combine the efforts of the citizens of the slave States. Mr. Calhoun favored it; others did the same. This looked sectionalism in earnest. The government of Washington was evidently fast drifting to the rubicon. Statesmen who would cling to the Constitution to the last extremity, paused to take a reckoning. And with the annexation of new territory, what would be the relative rights of the inhabitants thereof, was the great problem to be solved. General Cass had no misgivings; to his mind, it was clear upon what tack to put the ship of State.

CHAPTER XXXVI.

Harbor Appropriations - Views of General Cass-The Chicago Convention-The Famous LetterGeneral Cass' Official Acts for Harbor and other Public Improvements - His Speeches and Votes His Vindication.

The subject of making appropriations for the improvement of harbors on the northern lakes, has frequently been before Congress since General Cass has been a member. Uniformly he has favored, advocated and voted for all reasonable and necessary appropriations. Several times he has drawn up and introduced bills appropriating moneys for this purpose. If he has not always been successful in his efforts, it is to be ascribed to the variety of interests which, unfortunately, the extent of our country has created; and the question has become involved with other measures of public expenditure, having no natural connection with it. The constitutional right of Congress to appropriate money for the improvement of rivers and harbors on the lakes, has been designedly connected with the right of that body to commence and prosecute a general system of internal improvements, so that frequently those who believe that the constitutional right exists in the one case and not in the other, are compelled, by the arts of parliamentary tacticians, to oppose the system entirely, as it is presented to them.

It has been charged upon General Cass that he is opposed to appropriations for harbor and river improvements. The history of his votes, during his career in the Senate of the United States, disproves the truth of the unfounded allegation. He supports the creed of the Democratic party on this subject, carly established, and frequently reiterated in National Convention. It is summed up in the following declaration: "that the federal government is one of limited powers, derived solely from the Constitution, and the grants of power shown therein ought to be strictly construed by all the departments and agents of government, and that it is inexpedient and dangerous to exercise doubtful constitutional

powers; that the Constitution does not confer upon the general government the power to commence and carry on a GENERAL system of internal improvements."

commerce.

It does not deny the power of Congress to improve the great harbors, and rivers, and lakes of the country, that can be consid ered national in their character, and important to its defense and He recommended appropriations for such purposes when Secretary of War; but he does deny the power, and is opposed to its exercise, to devise and prosecute a vast system, whose pecuniary extent can not be foreseen, and whose corrupting influence in and out of Congress, may well excite apprehension; at the same time he has advocated and voted for particular appropriations, justified by the position and importance of the location to be improved.

In one of his speeches on this subject he says, "With respect to harbor improvements upon the great lakes, in which my constituents feel a deep interest, I may be permitted, I trust, to make a few remarks. It is the exercise of a power essential to the pros perity of the country, and necessary to prevent a prodigal waste of human life."

We will give one instance, from Congressional record, to show the position of General Cass on this question:

In July, 1846, Mr. Dix moved to take up the river and harbor bill.

Mr. Bagby (of Alabama) objected. He was opposed to the bill in principle, and with a view to record his vote, asked for the yeas and nays on the question, and they were ordered.

The yeas and nays were taken on the question, and stood, yeas thirty-seven-nays fourteen; GENERAL CASS VOTING IN THE AF

FIRMATIVE.

July 21.-On motion of Mr. Dix, the Senate resumed the consideration of the river and harbor appropriation bill.

Mr. Atchinson moved the reconsideration of the vote by which the following clause was stricken out:

"For the improvement of Little Fort harbor, on Lake Michigan, $12.000."

Upon this motion discussion ensued.

General Cass advocated the appropriation. He argued for it on the ground of expediency and constitutional right. He denied that they were legislating for mere local views. It was the duty

of Congress to legislate with a regard to local as well as general interests. He contrasted the importance of harbors on the lakes with the rivers. On the Mississippi and great western rivers every species of craft could land at any point; but, on the lakes, the God of nature had imposed the most formidable difficulties. He himself was once shipwrecked near the town of Cleveland, and saved his life at imminent hazard. He alluded to the commerce of the lakes. Last year the number of vessels of all kinds navigating the lakes was four hundred and ninety-five, and thirty were building; thirty-six vessels had been driven ashore-twenty total wrecks, and four had foundered.

The vote was reconsidered-yeas 32, noes 19-General Cass voting for the reconsideration. The further consideration of the bill was postponed.

July 23d.-Mr. Dix moved that the Senate resume the consideration of the river and harbor appropriation bill.

Mr. Atherton offered an amendment: Provided that no money shall be drawn from the treasury on account of any appropriation contained in this act, unless the revenues of the government shall be sufficient to pay the current expenses of the year without resorting to treasury notes or loans.

On the amendment Mr. Atherton demanded the ayes and noes, which being called, the amendment was lost-ayes 18, noes 33General Cass voting in the negative.

After offering and discussing various amendments, upon which General Cass invariably voted to sustain the bill, the question was taken upon ordering the bill to a third reading, which was doneayes 31, noes 16-General Cass voting in the affirmative.

The bill was then, by unanimous consent, read a third time and passed, General Cass voting for the passage of the bill.

Here, then, is the irrefragable proof that General Cass advocated in his speeches, and supported by his vote, appropriations for the improvement of our rivers and harbors; and he voted against Mr. Atherton's amendment, which was intended to, and would, if adopted, defeat the operation of the bill.

In further illustration of General Cass' construction of the constitutional power of Congress to make grants for specific improvements where the benefit will accrue to the country in general, in 1846 he advocated and voted for the bill to grant alternate sections of public land to the State of Michigan, to complete certain works