The Sun.
London, England, 1860-12-19 00:00:00

FRANCE.

With France, our ancient and powerful ally, our rela-
tions continue to be of the most friendly character. A de-
cision has recently been made by a French judicial tribu-
nal, with the approbation of the Imperial Government,
which cannot fail to foster the sentiments of mutual regard
that have so long existed between the two countries.
Under the French law no person can serve in the armies of
France unless he be a French citizen. The law of Fronce
recognising the natural right of expatriation, it follows as a
necessary consequence that a Frenchman, by the fact of hav-
ing become a citizen of the United States, has changed his
allegiance and has lost his native character. He cannot,
therefore, be compelled to serve in the French armies in
case he should return to his native country. These princi-
ples were announced in 1852 by the French Minister of
War, and in two late cases have been confirmed by the
French judiciary. In these, two natives of France have
been discharged from the French army because they had
become American citizens. To employ the language of
our present minister to France, who has rendered good
service on this occasion : "I do not think our French na-
turalised follow citizens will hereafter experience mush an-
noYance on this subject."
I venture to predict that the time ig not far distant when
the other continental powers will adopt the same wise and
just policy which has done so much honor to the enlightened
government of the Emperor. In any event, our Govern-
ment is bound to protect the rights of our naturalised citi-
zens everywhere, to the same extent as though they had
drawn their first breath in this country. We can recognise
no distinction between our native and naturalised citizens.
RUSSIA.

Between the Great Empire of Russia and the United
States the mutual friendship and regard which has so long
existed still continues to prevail, and, if possible, to increase.
Indeed, our relations with that Empire aro all that we could
desire.
SPAIN. •

Our relations with Spain aro now of a more complicated
though less dangerous character, than they have been for
many years. Our citizons have long held, and continue to
hold, numerous claims against the Spanish Government,.
These had been ably urged for a series of years by our suc-
cessive diplomatic representativas at Madrid, but without
obtaining redress., The Spanish Government finally agreed
to institute a joint commission for the adjustment of these
claims, and on the sth day of March, 1860, concluded a
convention for this purpose with, our present minister at
Madrid. Under this convention, what have been deno-
minated "the Cuban claims," amounting to 123,635 dols.
and 54 cents, in which more than one hundred of our fellow-
citizens are interested, were recognised, and the Spanish
government agreed to pay 100,000 dohs. of this amount
"within three months following the exchange of ratifi-
cations."
The payment of the remaining 28,635 dols. 54c. was to
await the decision of the commissioners for or aminst " the
Amistad claim,;" but in any event 'the balance was to be
paid to the claimants either by Spain or the United States.
These terms I have every reason to knew are highly satis-
factory to the holders of the Cuban claims. Indeed, they
have made a formal offer, authorising the State Department •
to settle these claims, and to deduct the amount of Clic,
Amistad claim from the sums which they are entitled to
receive from Spain. This offer of course cannot be accepted.
All other claims of citizens of the United States against
Spain, or of subjects of the Queen of Spain against tho
United States, including tho "Amistad claim," wore by

this convention referred to a board of commissioners in the
usual form. Neither the validity of the Amistad claim, nor
of any other claim against either party, wi th•the single ex-
ception of the Cuban claims, was recognised by the conven-
tion. Indeed, the Spanish Government did not insist that

he validity of the Alilisted claim should be thus recognised,
notwithstanding its payment had been recommended to
Congress by two of my predecessors as well as by myself,
and an appropriation for that purpose had passed the Senate
of the United States. They were content that it should be
submitted to the board for examination and decision, like
the other claims. Both Governments were bound respec-
tively to pay the amounts awarded to the several claimants
"at such times and places as may bo fixed by and accord-
ing to the tenor of said awards."
I transmitted this convention to the Senate for their con•
stitutional action On the 3d May, 1860, and on the 27th of
the succeeding June, they determined that they would "not
advise and consent" to its ratification.
_ _

These proceedings place our relations with Spain in an
awkward and embarrassing position. It is more than pro-
bable that the final adjustment of these claims will devolve
pon my successor.
I reiterate the recommendation contained in my annual
Message of December, 1858, and repeated in that of Decem
ber, 1859, in favour of the acquisition of Cuba from Spain
by fair purchase. I firmly believe that such an acquisition
would contribute essentially to the well-being and pros-
perity of both countries in all future time, as well as prove
the certain means of immediately abolishing the African
slave trade throughout the world. I would not re-
peat this recommendation upon the present occasion,
if I believed that the transfer of Cuba to the United
States, upon conditions highly favourable to Spain,
could justly tarnish the national honour of the proud and
_ _

ancient Spanish Monarchy.
Surely no person ever attributed to the first Napoleon a
disregard of the national honour of France, for transferring
Louisiana to the United States for a fair equivalent both
in money and commercial advantages.
At max, &c.
With the Emperor of Austria, and the remaining conti-
nental powers of Europe, including that of the Sultan, our
relations continue to be of the most friendly character.
The friendly and peaceful policy pursued by the Govern-
ment of the United States towards the Empire of China
has produced the most satisfactory results. The treaty of
Tientsin of the 13th of June, 1353, has been faithfully
observed by the Chinese authorities. The convention,of
the Bth November, 1858, supplementary to this treaty, for
the adjustment and satisfaction of the claims of our citi-
zees on China referred to in my first Annual Message,

of resisting the slow decay of time and of defying the sienna
of ages.
Indeed, well may the jealous patriots of that day have
indulged fears that a Government of such high powers
might violate the reserved rights of the States, and wisely
did they adopt the rule of a strict construction of these
powers to prevent thedanger I But they did not fear, nor
had they anyreason to imagine, that the Constitution would
ever be so interpreted as to enable any,State, by her own
act, and without the consent of her sister States, to dis-
charge her people from all or any of their Federal obliga-
tions.
It may be asked, then, are the people of the States with-
out redress against the tyranny and oppression of the
Federal Government ? By no means. The right of resis-
tance on the part of the governed against the oppression of
their governments cannot be denied.lt exists independently
of all constitutions, and has been exercised at all periods of
the world's history. Under it old governments have been
destroyed, and new ones have taken their place. It is
embodied in strong and express language in our own De-
claration of Independence. But the distinction must ever
be observed, that this is revolution against an established
Government, and not a voluntary secession from it by virtue
of an inherent constitutional right. In short, let us look
the danger fairly in the face : Secession is neither more nor
less than revolution. It may or may not be justifiable revo-
lution, but still it is revolution.
What, in the meantime, is the responsibility and position
of the Executive ? He is bound by solemn oath before God
and the country " to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed," from this obligation he cannot be ab-
solved by any human power. But what if the performance
of this duty, in whole or in part, has been rendered im-
practicable by events over which he could have exercised
no control ? ; Such, at the present moment, is the case
throughout the State of South Carolina, so far as the laws
of the United States to secure the administration of justice
by means of the Federal Judiciary are concerned.
All the Federal officers within its limits, through whose
agency alone these laws can be carried into execution, have
already resigned. We no longer have a district judge, a
district attorney, or a marshal of South Carolina. In fact,
the whole machinery of the Federal Government necessary
for the distribution of remedial justice among the people
has been demolished ; and it would be difficult, if not im-
possible, to replace it.
The only acts of Congress on the statute-book, bearing
upon this subject, are those of the 28th February, 1795, and
3d March, 1807. These authorise the President, after he
shall have ascertained that the marshal with his posse corn,
mitatas is unable to execute civil or criminal process in any
particular case, to call forth the militia and employ the
army and navy to aid him in performing this service, hav-
ing first by proclamation commanded the insurgents " to
disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes,
within a limited time." This duty cannot by possibility be
performed in a State where no judicial authority exists to
issue process, and where there is no marshal to execute it,
and where, even if there were such an officer, the entire
population would constitute one solid combination p resist
him.

The bare enumeration of these provisions proves how in-
adequate they are without further legislation to overcome a
eswsheolemneayhes place
pewtheremtseeldveeesidine
whether a si
united opposition in a single State, not to speak of other
CStilont7r
laws can or cannot be amended so as to carry out more
effectually the objects of the Constitution.
The same insuperable obstacles do not lie in the way of
executing the laws for the collection of the customs. The
revenue still continues to be collected, as heretofore, at the
custom-house inCharleston;'and should the collector unfor-
tunately resign, a successor may be appointed to perform
this duty.
Then in regard to the property of the United States in
South Carolina. This has been purchased for a fair equiva-
lent, "by the consent of the legislature of the State," " for
the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals" &c., and overthese
authority to exercise exclusive legislation has been expressly
granted by the Constitution to Congress. It is not believed
that any attempt will be made to expel the United States
from this property by force ; but if in this I should prove to
be mistaken, the officer in command of the forts has received
orders to act strictly on the defensive. In such a contin-
gency. the responsibility for consequences would rightfully
rest upon the heads of the assailants.
Apart from the execution of the laws, so far as this may be
practicable, the Executive has no authority to decide what
shall be the relations between the Federal Government and
South Carolina. He has been invested with no such dis-
cretion. Ile possesses no power to change the relations
heretofore existing between them, much less to acknow-
ledge the independence of that State. This would be to
invest a mere Executive officer with the power of recognis-
ing the dissolution of the Confederacy among our 33 sove-
reign States. It bears no resemblance to the recognition of
a foreign de facto government, involving no such responsi-
bility.
Any attempt to do this would, on his part, be a naked act of
usurpation. It is, therefore, my duty to submit to Con-
gress the whole question in all its bearings. The course of
events is so rapidly hastening forward that the emergency
may soon arise, when you may be called upon to decide
the momentous question whether you possess the
power, by force of arms, to compel a.State to remain in the
Union. I should feel myself recreant to my duty were I not
to express an opinion on this important subject.
The question fairly stated is—Has the Constitution dele-
gated to Congress the power to coerce a State into submis-
sion which is attempting to withdraw or has actually with-
drawn from the Confederacy ? If answered in the
affirmative, it must be on the principle that .the power has
been conferred upon Congress to declare and to make war
against a State. After much serious reflection I have
arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been dele-
gated to Congress or to any other department of the Federal
Government. It is manifest, upon an inspection of the Con-
stitution, that this is not among the specific and enumerated
powers granted to Congress ; and it is equally apparent that
its exercise is not "necessary and proper for carrying into
execution" any one of these powers. So far from this power
having been delegated to Congress, it was expressly refused
by the Convention which framed the Constitution.
It appears, from the proceedings of that body, that on
the 31st May, 1787, the clause " authorising an exertion of
the force of the whole against a delinquent State" came up
for consideration. Mr. Madison opposed it in a brief but
powerful speech, from which I shall extract but a single
sentence. He observes—" The use of force against a State
would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction
of punishment; and would probably be considered by the
party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by
which it might be bound."
Upon his motion the clause was unanimously postponed,
and was never I believe again presented. Soon afterwards,
on the Bth June, 1787, wen incidentally adverting to the
subject, he said—" Any Government for the United States,
formed on the supposed practicability of using force against
the unconstitutional proceedings of the States, would prove
as visionary and fallacious as the Government of Congress,"
evidently meaning the then existing Congress of the old
Confederation.
Without descending to particulars, it may be safely
asserted, that the power to make war against a State is at
variance with the whole spirit and intent of the Constitu-
tion. Suppose such a war should result in the conquest of
a State, how are we to govern it afterwards ?' Shall we
hold it as a province, and govern it by despotic power ?
In the nature of things we could not, by physical force,
control the will of the people and compel them to elect
senators and representatives to Congress, and to perform
all the other duties depending upon their own volition, and
required from the free citizens of a free State as a consti-
tuent member of the Confederacy.
But, if we possessed this power, would it be wise to exercise
it under existing circumstances ? The object would doubt-
less be to preserve the union. War would not only present
the most effectual means of destroying it; lit would
banish all hope of its peaceable reconstruction. Besides,
in. the fraternal conflict a vast amount of blood and ti ensure
would be expended,rrendering future reconciliation:between
the States impossible. In the mean time, who can foretell
what would be the suffering and privation of the people
during its existence ?
The fact is, that our Union rests upon public opinion,
and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed
in civil war. If it cannot live in the affections of the people,
it must one day perish. Congress posesses many means of
preserving it by conciliation; but the sword was not placed
in their hand to preserve it by force.
But may I be permitted solemnly to invoke my country.
men to pause and deliberate, before they determine to de-
stroy this, the grandest temple which has over been dedi-
cated to human freedom since the world began P It has
been consecrated by the blood of our fathers, by the glories
of the past, and by the hopes of the future. The Union has
already made us the most prosperous and, ere long, will, if
preserved, render us the most powerful nation on the face
of the earth. In every foreign region of the globe the
title of American citizen is held in the highest respect, and
when pronounced in a foreign land it causes the hearts of
our countrymen to swell with honest pride. Surely when
we reach the brink of the yawning abyss, we shall recoil
with horror from the last fatal plunge. By such a
dread catastrophe the hopes of the friends of free-
dom throughout the world would be destrOyed, and a long
night of laden despotism would enshroud the nations. Our
example for more than 80 years would not only be lost; but
it would be quoted as a conclusive proof that man is unfit
for self-government.
It is not every wrong—nay, it is not every grievous
wrong—which can justify a resort to such a fearful
alternative. This ought to be the last desperate remedy of
_after evnry crmstitntional means
of conciliation had been exhausted. We suoum -retied that
under this free Government there is an incessant ebb and
flow in public opinion. The slavery question, like
everything human, will have its day. I firmly believe that
it has already reached and passed the culminating point.
But if, in the midst of the existing excitement, the Union
shall perish, the evil may then become irreparable Con-
gress ban contribute much to avert it by proposing and
recommending to the legislatures of the several States the
remedy for existing evils, which the Constitution has
itself provided for its own preservation. This has
been tried at different critical periods of our history,
and always with eminent success. It is to •be found
in the sth article providing for its own amendment. Under
this article amendments have been proposed by two-thirds
of both houses of Congress, and have been " ratifi.d by the
legislatures of three-fourths of the several States," and con-
sequently become parts of the Constitution. To this pro-
cess the country is indebted for the clause prohibiting Con-
gress from passing any law respecting an establishment of
religion, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,
or of the right of petition. To this we are also indebted for
the Bill of Rights which secures the people against any abuse
of power by the Federal Government. Such were the appre-
hensions justly entertained by the friends of State-rights at
that period as to have rendered it extremely doubtful
whether the Constitution could have long survived without
these amendments.
Again, the Constitution was amended by the same -pro-
cess after the election of President Jefferson by the House of
Represenfatives, in February, 18e3. This amendment was
rendered necessary to prevent a recurrence of the dangers
which had seriously threatened the existence of the Govern-
ment during the pendency of that election. The article for
its ewn amendment was intended to secure the amicable
adjustment of conflicting constitutional questions like the
present, which might arise between the governments of the
States and that of the United States. This appears from
contemporaneous history.
In this connection, I shall merely call attention to a few
sentences in Mr. Maddison's justly-celebrated report, in
1709, to the legislature of 'Virginia. In this he ably and
conclusively defended the resolutions of the preceding le-
gislature against the strictures of several other State legis- I
latures. These were mainly founded upon. the protest of
the Virginia legislature against .the "Alien and Sedition
Acts," as "palpable and alarming infractions of the Con-
stitution." In pointing out the peaceful and constitutional
remedies, and he referred to none other, to which the States
were authorised to resort, on such occasions, ho concludes
by saying, "that the legislatures of the States might have
made a direct representation to Congress with a view to
obtain the rescinding of the two offensive acts, or they
might have represented to their respective Senator in Con-
gress their wish that two-thirds thereof' would propose an
explanatory amendment to the Constitution, or two-thirds
of themselves, if snob had been their optima; might; by au