ページの画像
PDF
ePub

an additional outrage. Death committed with-President was so expressed as to exclude the in the United States, in resisting such violence, case of an impressed American liberating himwould not have been murder, and the person self by homicide. giving the wound could not have been treated as a murderer. Thomas Nash was only to have Mr. Marshall now observed that he had been delivered up to justice on such evidence already too long availed himself of the indulas, had the fact been committed within the United States, would have been sufficient to %

gence of the House, to venture farther on that have induced his commitment and trial for indulgence by recapitulating or reinforcing the murder. Of consequence, the decision of the arguments which had already been urged.

RUFUS KING.

Rufus KING, the eldest son of Richard King, an opulent and worthy merchant of Scarboro', Maine, was born in the year 1755. After due preparation, he was placed in the Byfield Academy, at Newbury, Massachusetts, where, under the severe discipline of the “classical Samuel Moody," he finished his elementary studies: and in 1773, entered Harvard College. In 1777, he received his first degree; with great reputation for his classical attainments, and more especially, for his extraordinary powers of oratory; an accomplishment in which he was particularly desirous to excel, and to the acquisition of which he applied himself with the highest enthusiasm. On leaving college he went to Newburyport, and commenced the study of law in the office of the celebrated Theophilus Parsons, with whom he remained until his admission to the bar in the year 1780. A short portion of this period of his life, however, was devoted to the cause of his country, as, in 1778, he took the field as a volunteer, was appointed an aid to General Sullivan, and acompanied that officer in his enterprise with Count D'Estaing, against the British at Rhode Island.

Mr. King appeared at the bar in his first cause, under peculiar circumstances. His opponent was his great instructor, Parsons. Fully aware of the gigantic powers with which he was to contend, he called forth his best efforts, and evinced such talent, both as a lawyer and a speaker, that immediate and confident predictions were made of his future eminence. It is stated, that “the effect of his address upon the court, the bar, and the audience, was electrifying." Soon after this successful entrance upon professional life, he was elected to represent the town of Newburyport in the Legislature of Massachusetts, in which assembly he soon rose to distinction. In 1784, Congress recommended to the several States to grant to the general government, "full authority to regulate their commerce, both external and internal, and to impose such duties as might be necessary for that purpose." A debate arose in the legislature, in which Mr. King supported the grant, and finally prevailed.

During the same year, 1784, he was elected, by an almost unanimous vote of the legislature, a delegate to the Continental Congress, from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; and on the sixth of December, joined that body, then in session at Trenton, New Jersey. In 1785 and 1786, he was reëlected to Congress, and took an active and important part in its transactions. On the sixteenth of March, 1785, he submitted to Congress and advocated the passage of the following proposition: “That there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the States, described in the resolve of Congress of the twenty-third of April, 1784, otherwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been personally guilty; and that this regulation shall be an article of compact, and remain a fundamental principle of the constitutions between the thirteen original States, and each of the States described in the said resolve of the twenty-third of April, 1784.” By this resolution, slavery was prohibited in the territory northwest of the Ohio.*

In 1787, Mr. King was a member of the Convention held in Philadelphia, for the purpose

* Journals of the American Congress. Edition of 1823, pp. 379, 431. VOL. II.-3

of framing the Federal Constitution, and on the reference of that instrument to the several States for their consideration, he was chosen by his old constituents of Newburyport, a delegate to the Massachusetts Convention. In both of those assemblies, he bore an active and prominent part. In the latter, he and Fisher Ames took the lead. For their wise and patriotic labors here, they are entitled to the deepest gratitude of their countrymen. “The history of the world," says a modern writer, “records no case of more interest, than that which pervaded the United States in 1788. Thirteen independent sovereignties, seriously alarmed for their preservation against each other, more alarmed with the apprehension that they might give up the liberty which they had gained with the utmost exertion of mind and body from foreign tyranny, to one of their own creation, within their own limits, called into the deliberative assemblies of the time all the able men of the country. Some union of the States was admitted by all to be indispensable; but in what manner, it was to be effected, what powers should be given, and what powers reserved, how these should be modified, checked, and balanced, were points on which honest men might zealously contend. Here was a case in which a whole people, unawed by any foreign power, in peace with all the world, sorely experienced in what may be the exercise of civil authority, dependent on no will but their own, convinced of the necessity of forming some government, were called on to settle, by peaceful agreement, among themselves, the most important questions which can be presented to the human mind." *

An intense interest was manifested in the proceedings of the Massachusetts Convention, and it was believed that, if that body rejected the constitution, its adoption by a requisite number of the other States would not be made. There was a great difference of opinion among the members; each one had his own objections, and “there is no doubt," says Sullivan, “if the question had been taken without discussion, there would have been a large majority against the adoption.” At this crisis, Mr. King and Mr. Ames, advocated the ratification. “Every day they made converts, and became more popular, until at last the question was carried against the declared determination of those who entered the convention for the express purpose of defeating it." The next year, 1788, Mr. King removed to the city of New York, where he was chosen a member of the State Legislature, and during the summer of the same year, was elected one of the first senators to Congress under the Federal Constitution.

In 1794, during the excitement consequent on the promulgation of the British treaty, Mr. King appearing, with his friend Alexander Hamilton, at a public meeting in New York, attempted to explain and defend it, but the people refused to listen, and a short time after the sentiments which were to have been offered, were conveyed to the people through the press, in a series of essays under the signature of Camillus ; the first ten numbers of which were written by Hamilton, and the rest, which treated of navigation, trade, and maritime law, by Mr. King.

About this time a warm and protracted controversy arose in the Senate of the United States, relative to the eligibility of Albert Gallatin, t who had been elected a Senator from the State of Pennsylvania. A petition was presented against his taking his seat, in which it was set forth that he was not legally qualified by having been a citizen of the United States a sufficient number of years. Owing to the various modes of naturalization adopted by different States, the question was involved in some obscurity: at the same time it was one of the highest importance. Among the debaters on the subject were the ablest men of both parties. The opponents of the petition, who maintained the right of the returned member to his seat, were Mr. Monroe, Mr. Burr, and John Taylor, of Virginia; opposed to these, were Ellsworth, Strong, King, and their political friends; and to Mr. King, it was assigned to answer Mr. Burr, if he should take part in the debate. Mr. Burr opened the case in "a discourse of considerable ingenuity.” When he had finished, Mr. King immediately replied, in a speech which is said to have been one of the most gigantic displays of eloquence of modern times. One of his auditors says, "he worked himself up into such a fervor, that he leapt from the floor, and that, extravagant as this action may appear, it was no more then, than the action suited to the word.*** The debate resulted in the exclusion of Mr. Gallatin.

* Familiar Letters upon Public Characters, by William Sullivan, page 61. + See the sketch of Albert Gallatin, in the subsequent pages of this work.

Early in the year 1796, he was appointed by President Washington, minister to the Court of Great Britain, in which service he remained seven years. While abroad his relations with the literary and public men of the day, were intimate and distinguished. By the mild dignity of his manners, and his capacity for public business, he acquired and maintained a powerful personal influence, which he exerted to advance the interests of his country." He returned to New York in 1803, and five years after removed to his estate on Long Island, where he resided until the commencement of the war of 1812, when he again entered the scenes of political life. In 1813 he was chosen by the legislature of New York, a Senator of the United States. The nation was at that time involved in a war with England. "At this momentous crisis," says one of his cotemporaries, “when many of the stoutest hearts were appalled, and the weak despaired of the Republic, Mr. King was neither idle nor dismayed. His love of country dispelled his attachments to party. No habit of opposition could induce him to forget that the United States was his country, and that the rights and honor of that country he ought to support and maintain. It has been observed that the conduct of the British, exhibited in their destruction of Washington, tended to unite all parties in America. The speech of Mr. King, in the Senate, on this occasion, while it may compare with any of his former efforts, in eloquence, has the rare and enviable distinction of being approved and applauded for its sentiments also, by the entire nation."

During his attendance at Congress, in 1816, he was nominated for the office of Governor of New York. With reluctance, and after much solicitation, he acquiesced in the nomination. The result, however, was unfavorable to the expectations of his friends. In 1820 he was again returned to the Senate, where he continued until the expiration of the term, in March, 1825. The most important measures originated by him during his senatorial term are, the law requiring cash payments upon sales of the public lands, and the act of 1818, which is the foundation of the navigation system of the United States.

On his retirement from Congress, he intended to close his political career; but, with the hope of contributing to the adjustment of several disputed questions between Great Britain and the United States, he accepted the mission to the British Court, tendered him by President Adams. His appointment proved satisfactory to the ministers of the British Court. On his arrival in England he was treated with distinguished and respectful consideration; but his health was so impaired, by a disease often the consequence of a voyage, that he never entered apon the active duties of his office. After remaining abroad a year, in the hope of re-establishing his health, without any improvement, he returned to his native land, where, cheered by the attentions of an affectionate family, and with resignation, he died on the 29th of April, 1827.

THE NAVIGATION ACT.

This speech on the “ American Navigation power of nations. Agriculture is the chief and Act,” I was delivered by Mr. King, in the well rewarded occupation of our people, and Senate of the United States, on the third day of

yields, in addition to what we want for our own

use, a great surplus for exportation. ManufacApril, 1818:

tures are making a sure and steady progress;

and, with the abundance of food and of raw Agriculture, Manufactures, and Foreign Com

m; materials, which the country affords, will, at no merce are the true source of the wealth and distant day, be sufficient, in the principal

• Delaplaine's Repository: Article Rufus King.

States should be and should remain closed against every + Maryland Gazette, 1818, and the American annual Regis- vessel owned, wholly or in part, by a subject or subjects of ter. Cartis's History of the Constitution of the United States. His Britannic Majesty, coming or arriving from any port or

The first section of this Act provided, " that from and place in a colony or territory of His Britannic Majesty, that after the soth of September, 1918, the ports of the United I was or should be by the ordinary laws of navigation and

branches, for our own consumption, and furnish war. According to this system the colonies a valuable addition to our exports. But, with-were depressed below the rank of their fellow out shipping and seamen, the surpluses of subjects, and the fruits of their industry and agriculture and of manufactures would depre- their intercourse with foreign countries, placed ciate on our hands: the cotton, tobacco, bread under different regulations from those of the stuffs, provisions and manufactures would turn inhabitants of the mother country. It was the out to be of little worth, unless we have ships denial to Americans of the rights enjoyed by and mariners to carry them abroad, and to dis- Englishmen, that produced the American revotribute them in the foreign markets.

lution—and the same cause, greatly aggravated, • Nations have adopted different theories, as is producing the same effect in South America.

respects the assistance to be derived from navi- Among the navigators and discoverers of the gation; some have been content with a passive sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Dutch foreign commerce-owning no ships themselves, became highly distinguished, and, by enterprise, but depending on foreigners and foreign vessels economy and perseverance, made themselves to bring them their supplies, and to purchase of the carriers of other nations, and their country them their surpluses; while others, and almost the entrepot of Europe-and it was not until the every modern nation that borders upon the middle of the last mentioned century, that ocean, have preferred an active foreign trade, England passed her Navigation Act, which had carried on, as far as consistent with the recip- for its object, to curtail the navigation of the rocal rights of others, by national ships and Dutch and to extend her own. seamen.

According to this act, the whole trade and A dependence upon foreign navigation sub- intercourse between England, Asia, Africa and jects those who are so dependent, to the known America, were confined to the shipping and disadvantages from foreign wars, and to the mariners of England; and the intercourse beexpense and risk of the navigation of belligerent tween England and the rest of Europe was nations—the policy of employing a national placed under regulations which, in a great shipping is, therefore, almost universally ap measure, confined the same to English ships proved and adopted : it affords not only a more and English seamen. This act was strenuously certain means of prosecuting foreign commerce, opposed by the Dutch, and proved the occasion but the freight, as well as the profits of trade, of the obstinate naval wars that afterwards folare added to the stock of the nation. The value lowed. England was victorious; persisted in and importance of national shipping and seamen, her Navigation Act, and, in the end, broke have created among the great maritime powers, down the monopoly in trade which the Dutch and particularly in England, a strong desire to had until then possessed. acquire, by restrictions and exclusions, a dis! That in vindication of her equal right to navproportionate share of the general commerce of igate the ocean, England should have resisted the world. As all nations have equal rights, the monopoly of the Dutch, and freely expendand each may claim equal advantages in its ed her blood and treasure to obtain her just intercourse with others, the true theory of inter- share of the general commerce, deserved the national commerce is one of equality, and of approbation of all impartial men. But, having reciprocal benefits: this theory gives to enter- accomplished this object, that she should herprise, to skill and to capital, their just and nat- self aim at, and in the end establish, the same ural advantages; any other scheme is artificial ; exclusive system, and on a more extended scale, and so far as it aims at advantages over those is neither consistent with her own laudable who adhere to the open system, it aims at principles, nor compatible with the rights of profit at the expense of natural justice.

others; who, relatively to her monopoly now, The colonial system being founded in this are in the like situation towards England, as vicious theory, has, therefore, proved to be the England was towards the Dutch, when she asfruitful source of dissatisfaction, insecurity and serted and made good her rights against them.

By the English Act of Navigation, the trade

of her colonies is restrained to the dominions trade, closed against vessels owned by citizens of the United of the mother country; and none but English States ; and every such vessel, so excluded from the ports of

ships, "whereof the master and three-fourths the United States, that should enter, or attempt to enter the

of her mariners are English," are allowed to same, in violation of the act, should, with her tackle, apparel, and furniture, together with the cargo on board such vessel,

engage in it.

So long as colonies are within such limits as be forfeited to the United States."

leaves to other nations a convenient resort to The second section provided, substantially, “that any

foreign markets for the exchange of the goods British vessel entering any port of the United States, should on her departure, if laden with the productions of the United

which they have to sell, for those they want to States, give bond not to land her cargo at any of the British

buy, so long this system is tolerable; but if the ports prohibited in the first section, and to forfeit vessel,

power of a state enables it to increase the numtackle, &c., if she should attempt to sail without so giving

ber of its colonies and dependent territories, so bond."

that it becomes the mistress of the great miliThe third section enacted the manner of recovering the

tary and commercial stations throughout the penalties, accounting for them, &c.--History of Congress, globe, this extension of dominion, and the con1817-1818, vol. 1, page 312.

sequent monopoly of commerce, seem to be in

« 前へ次へ »