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

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 19, 1860.

application to Congress, have obtained a con ventiou for the
same object."
This is the very course which I earnestly recomm,lnd in
order to obtain an " explanatory amendment" of the Con-
stitution on the subject of slavery. This might origi 'nate
with Congress or the State Legislatures, as may be deeLued
most advisable to attain the object.
The explanatory amendment might be confined to th'e
final settlement of the true construction of the Constitution'
on three special points : • •
1. An express recognition of the right of property in
slaves in the States where it now exists or may hereafter
exist.
2. The duty of protecting this right in all the common
Territories throughout their territorial existence, and until
they shall be admitted as States into the Union, with or
without slavery, as their constitutions may prescribe.
3: A like recognition of the right of the master to have
his slave, who has escaped from one State to another,
restored and delivered up to him, and of the validity of the
fugitive slave law enacted for this purpose, together with a
declaration that all State laws impairing or defeating this
right are violations of the constitution, and are consequently
null and -void.
It may be objected that this construction of the constitu-
tion has already been settled by the Supreme Court of the
United States, and what more ought to be required ? The
answer is that a very large proportion of the people of the
United States still contest the correctness of this decision,
and never will cease from agitation and admit its binding
force until clearly established by the people of the several
States in their sovereign character. Such an explanatory
amendment would, it is believed, for ever terminate the
existing dissensions and restore peace and harmony among
he States.
It ought not to be doubted that such an appeal to the
arbi,,t;ament established by the constitution itself would be
receiveswith favour by all the States of the confederacy.
In any even! it
ought to be tried in a spirit of conciliation
before any of the 60
When I entered upon'
States shall separate themselves from
the Union.
the aspect neither of our .e.'rei
the duties of the Presidental office,
at all satisfactory. We were
gn nor domestic affairs was
volved in dangerous com-
plications with several nations, an,..4 two of our territories
were in a state of revolution against the kilovernment.
A restoration of the African slave trade numerous
and powerful advocates. Unlawful military exp:4i. tions
were countenanced by many of our eitizens, and were si:f-
fered, in defiance of the Government, to escape from our
shores, for the purpose of making war upon the unoffend-
ing people of neighbouring republics with whom we were
at peace.
In addition to these and other difficulties, we experienced
a revulsion in monetary affairs, soon after my advent to
power, of unexampled severity and of ruinous consequences
to all the great interests of the country. When we take a
retrospect of what was then our condition, and contrast this
with its material prosperity at the time of late presiden-
tal election, we have abundant reason to return our grateful
thanks to that merciful Providence which has never for-
saßen us as a nation in all our past trials.

QTJR FOREIGN RELATIONS.
GREAT BRITAIN.

OM relations with, Great Britain are of the most friendly
character. Since the commencement of my administration,
the two iNngerous questions, arising from the Clayton and
Bulwer treaty and from the right of search claimed by the
British Government, have bden renicably and honourably
adjusted.
The discordant construction of the Clayton and Bulwer
treaty between the two Governments, which at different
periods of the discussion, bore a threatening aspect, have
resulted in a final settlement entirely satisfactory to this
Government. In my last anneal message I informed Con-
gress that the British Government had not then "com-
pleted treaty arrangements with the republics of Hondu-
ras and Nicaragua, in pursuance of the understanding be-
tween the two Governments. It is nevertheless confidently
expected that this good work will ere long be accomplished.
This confident :expectation has since been fulfilled. Her
[ Britannic Majesty concluded a treaty with Mot:tiaras
on the 24th November, 1859, and with Nicaragua on
the 28th August, 1860, relinquishing the Mosquito
protectorate. Besides, by the former, the Bay Islands
are recognised as a part of the republic of Honduras.
It may be observed that the stipulations of these treaties
conform in every important particular to the amendments
adopted by the Senate of the United States to the treaty ,
concluded at London on the 19th of October, 1856, between
the two Governments. It will be recollected that this treaty
was rejected by the British Government because of its ob-
jection to the just and important amendment of the Senate
to the article relating to Ruatan and the other islands in the
Bay of Honduras.
It must be a source of sincere satisfaction to all classes of
our fellow-citizens, and especially to those engaged in
foreign commerce, that the claim on the part of Great
Britain, forcibly to visit and search American vessels on
the high seas in time of peace, has been abandoned. This
was by far the most dangorous question to the peace of the
two countries which has existed since the war of 1812.
Whilst it remained open, they might at any moment have
been precipitated into a war. This was rendered mani-
fest by the exasperated state of public feeling
throughout our entire country, produced by the
forcible search of American merchant vessels by
British cruisers oil the coast of Cuba, in the spring of 1858.
The American people hailed with gerieral acclaim the
orders of the Secretary of the Navy to our naval force in
the Gulf of Mexico, "to protect all vessels of the United
States on the high seas from search or detention by the
vessels of war of any other nation."
These orders might have produced an immediate colli-
sion between the naval forces of the two countries. This
was most fortunately prevented by an appeal to the justice
of Great Britain and to the law of nations as expounded by
her own most eminent jurists.
The only question of any importance which still remains
open is the disputed title between the two Governments to
the island of San Juan, in the vicinity of Washington Ter-
litory. Al this question is still under negotiation, it isnot
deemed advi.,able at the present moment to make any other
allusion to the subject. .
The recent visit of the Prince of Wales, in private cha-
racter, to the people of this country, has proved to be a
most auspicious event: In its consequences, it cannot fail
to increase the kindred and kindly feelings which I trust
may ever actuate the Oevernment and people of both
countries in their political And social intercourse with each
other. _

of resisting the slow decay of time and of defying the storms
of ages.
Indeed, well may the jealous patriots 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 ims
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 lews
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
94. March, 1807. These authorise the President, after ho
shall gave ascertained that the marshal with his posse com-
Initatas 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, oven if there were such an officer, the entire
population would constitute one solid combination to resist
him.
The bare enumeration of these provisions proves how in-
adequate they are without further legislation to overcome a
united opposition in a single State, not to speak of other
States who may place themselves in a similar attitude.
Congress alone has power to decide whether the present
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 over these
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. He 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, when 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 native 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 wepossessed 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; but would
banish all hope of its peaceable reconstruction. Besides,
in the fraternal conflict a vast amount of blood and treasure
would be expended,' rendering future reoonciliationibetween
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
preservi band to preserve
ng it by conciliation; but the sword was not placed
in their
But may I be permitted solemnly to invoke my country-
men to pause a'nd deliberate, before they determine to de-
stroy this, the grandest temple which has ever been dedi-
cated to human freedom since the world began ? 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 despotiste 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
a despairing people, after every other constitutional means
of conciliation had been exhausted. We should reflect 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 can 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 " ratified 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
Representatives, in February, 1803. 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 own 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. Maddisen's justly-celebrated report, in
1799, 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 Slate legis-
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, he concludes
by saying, " that the legislatures of tine States might have
made a direct reptusentation to Congress with a view to
obtain the rescinding of the two offensive acts, or the,
might have represented to their respective Senator in Con-
gress their wish that two-thirds thereof would propose an
explanatory amendment to the Constitution,ler two-thirds
!of themselves, if ouch had been their option, 1121,01 t, by AA

has been already carried into effect, so far as this was
practicable.

Under this convention the sum of 500,000 taels, equal
to about 700,000 dols., was stipulated to bepaid in satisfac-
tion of the claims of American citizens, out of the one-fifth
of the receipts for tonnage import, and export duties on
American vessels at the ports of Canton, Shanghae, and
Fuchau; and it was " agreed that this amount shall be in
full liquidation of all claims of American citizens at the
various ports to this date." Debentures for this amount
—to wit: 300,000 taels for Canton,;100,000 for Shanghae,
and 100,000 for Fuchau—were delivered, according to the
terms of the convention, by the respective Chinese collec
tors of the customs of these ports to the agent selected by
our Minister to receive the same.
Since that time the claims of our citizens have been
adjusted by the board of commissioners appointed for
that purpose under the act of March 3, 1859, and their
awards, which proved satisfactory to the claimants, have
been approved by our minister. In the aggregate they
amount to the sum of 498,694 dols. 78c. The claimants
have alreadyreceived a large proportionof the sums awarded
to them out of the fund provided, and it is confidently ex-
pected that the remainded will ere long be entirely paid.
After the awards shall have been satisfied, there will re-
main a surplus of over 200,000 dols at the disposition of Con-
gress. As this will in equity belong to the Chinese Go-
vernment, would not justice require its appropriation to
some benevolent object in which the Chinese may be speci-
ally interested ?

Our minister to China, in obedience to his instructions,
has remained perfectly neutral in the war between Great
Britain and France and the Chinese empire ; although, in
conjunction with the Russian minister, he was ever ready
and willing, had the opportunity offered, to employ his good
offices in restoring peace between the parties. It is but an
act of simple justice, both to our present minister and his
predecessor, to state, that they haVe proved fully equal to
the delicate, trying, and responsible positions in which they
have on different occasions been placed.