"He respected the dignity of the body too much to give his assent to
their entertaining a measure for no better reason than because it was harm-
less. Besides, that act which now apjjeared so harmless, might ultimately
turn out to be very mischievous as a precedent; and this violation of the
Constitution in a thing, no matter how trifling, might hereafter be made the
SPEECH ON THE BRITISH TREATY. 53
ground of more daring encroachment. On this point he warned the House
to be cautious, to guard, not only the main body, but the outposts ; and to
reflect in due time that some twenty or thirty years to come this precedent
might be brought forward to the incalculable injury, perhaps to the ruin, of
the Constitution.
"Gentlemen had said that, on a commercial subject, no treaty could be
obligatory, because the Constitution had assigned to Congress the regulation
of commerce. Where, then, said he, will gentlemen stop? To Congress,
say they, is delegated the exclusive jurisdiction over everything. Accord-
ing to their construction, therefore, the treaty-making power was impotent,
a nullity, it could do nothing; it could not make peace, because peace repels
war, the right of making which is delegated to Congress; and it could not
form alliances for the same reason. But gentlemen, he observed, seemed not
to recollect the old maxim, that he who proves too much, proves nothing.
The President, say they, can not repeal the excise ! No, but the President
can make a peace without the concurrence of that House, and fortunate it
was that he could do so.
"We now, said Mr. Hardin, feel the happy effects of that power, and
conceive that a treaty of peace has been accomplished without any encroach-
ments or pretended encroachments on our congressional acts. The power
to treat generally, he said, was vested in the President by the Constitution,
but to the law of nations it was left to determine the limitations of that
power. If it be true, said Mr. Hardin, that, by the terms of the Constitu-
tion of the United States, this treaty is already the law of the land, then is
the treaty guaranteed by that Constitution, and yet, gentlemen insist that it
is not valid, and that this House ought to be consulted. By the Constitu-
tion, we are forbidden to be heard on the subject, yet they will have it
otherwise, and, by this species of indirection, this left-handed course, bring
the treaty under our legislative cognizance. Sir, I say we can not do indi-
rectly that which we are forbidden to do directly. Treaties might be made,
no doubt, he said, for the execution of which it might be necessary to call
upon the House to make laws — offensive and defensive treaties, for instance,
which could not otherwise be carried into effect — but when, as in the
present case, the treaty was complete, and capable of executing itself, noth-
ing of the kind was necessary.
'• As to the instances which had been adduced of Congress being called
upon to enact laws for carrying treaties into effect, he believed that there was
not one of them similar to this. The case of Jay's treaty was not. The
Federalists supported that on two grounds — one that it was a good treaty,
the other that, whether good or bad, it would not be consistent with the
honor of the country to reject it — but it never was brought forward as this is,
a re echo of itself in the shape of a bill. And, as to the cases taken from
the proceedings of the British records, the organization of that Government
CA BEN HARDIN.
was, in all respects, so different from ours, thaUt was impossible to argue
fairly or conclusively from the one to the other."
Mr. Hardin participated in the debate in relation to the revenue,
and urged tax reductions. He was ranked with the opponents of the
administration of President Madison on this and other questions. In
his speech on the bill for repeal of the direct tax, he freely criticised
the administration and its modes. In the same speech, he made sar-
castic allusions to Mr. Clay, which the latter, with some temper,
resented. Mr. Clay was a friend of the administration. He, perhaps,
did what he could in his capacity of speaker to discourage and embar-
rass Hardin in his attempts against it. Hardin made more than one
effort to get the floor before he succeeded. On the occasion of one
of his failures, when ruled not in order, he retorted that, ' ' being a ne\^i
member, he knew little of what was called order in the House, and did
not mean to violate it ; he had heard a great deal about it, but had
seen very little of it since he had taken his seat." On January 24.th,
on his motion to declare the repeal of the direct-tax expedient, he
made a speech from which the following is taken :
" Mr. Hardin said that on Saturday last he had notified the House that in
some shape or other he intended to bring the question before them as to the
expediency of repealing the direct ta.x ; that on that day he had made one or
two efforts to bring the question directly before the House when in Commit-
tee of the Whole, but every attempt failed, because, as alleged by the Chair,
it was not in order.
" It ought not to have been a matter of importance to the Chair, in his
endeavors on that day to present the question for consideradon, whether he
was or was not exactly in trim order, because, if a man be entitled to admis-
sion, his bowing at the door like a Frenchman or an Englishman, a beau or a
clown, as long as he behaved decendy, did not add to or diminish his right.
Nor did he believe that this want of a little ceremony deemed important by
the Chair ought to have prevented him from being heard upon a great national
question when he was solicitous to address the House on the subject, or
because he had at that time the complaint so common to some gentlemen in
this House, to-wit : the speech-making fever. Mr. Hardin said that the
amendment to the resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means having
been offered by him, it laid him under some obligations to the House to
assign the reasons which had induced him to do it.
" Mr. Hardin said he approached the subject with great diffidence and
reluctance. Diffident he was, because he distrusted his own capacity to do
the subject justice ; and reluctant he was, because to his great regret he had
witnessed in that House an unconquerable indisposidon to alter, change, or
SPEECH ON THE DIRECT TAX, 55
modify anything reported by any one of the standing committees of the
House. He said the manner in which the legislative business was conducted
destroyed the freedom of legislation altogether. The President signified his
will to the heads of departments. They made their annual report to the
House, recommending the adoptioii of certain measures. It was pretty well
understood that what they recommended was the will of the Executive. The
reports of heads of departments were referred to the standing committees,
a majority of whom were followers of the Executive. They kept in secret
conclave for a month or two, until the House became all anxiety, and solici-
tude was on tiptoe. Each day an inquiry would be made when they would
report.
" Not ready yet, would be the answer. The members of the committee
looked grave, pensive, and melancholy, as if oppressed with a mighty weight
of thought. At last they had burst upon the House with their report; and
what was it when made? A mere echo, a r/iere response to executive will,
with small and immaterial variations, intended for the purpose of inducing
the House to believe that they had matured the subject well, when, perhaps,
they had never thought about it ; pre-determined from the first, to re-echo
back in substance the Presidential will, and when the report thus made
finds its way into the House, it is fixed. Right or wrong, it must not be
altered. Each member of the committee adheres to it, each hanger-on ap-
plauds it, and all, as the poet says, ' Who live and never think,' support it. Mr.
Hardin said that independent of the disadvantages he labored under as above
stated, he also felt a little chagrined at the manner in which these questions
respecting the ta.xes, direct and indirect, are brought before the House.
Each item of taxation being separately discussed, each wheel of the machin-
ery is separately presented, and we are admonished not to touch it, because
the whole work will be stopped if you touch one of the wheels. I have
heard of many maneuvers in military and naval tactics. This, sir, may,
for what I know, be a system of legislative maneuvers, and it is a most
admirable one to answer the object intended. I know of many who would
gladly make alterations in the system, but do not attempt it for fear of break-
ing up its foundation. The committee have had it under consideration for
a month or two, and we ought not to meddle with it. Mr. Hardin said the
task was too herculean for him to believe that he could effect and procure
the adoption of the amendment proposed by him. Hence arises, said Mr.
Hardin, my reluctance, Mr. Chairman, to address at this time this honorable
committee; but as I pledged myself to the House on Saturday last I would
make this effort to repeal the direct tax, I now proceed to redeem that pledge
— to perform that promise.
" It is contended by those in favor of the continuation of the direct tax,
among whom I am sorry to see my colleague, the honorable Speaker, first,
that the direct tax is necessary, in aid of the present and prospective receipts
,C5 BEN HARDIN.
of the Treasury, to enable the Government to meet the demands against her,
which consist of the necessary expenditures for the civil, diplomatic, and
miscellaneous expenses; the military and naval establishments; the interest
on the national debt contracted since the war. It is furthermore contended,
even should the sum proposed to be rUised by the continuance of the direct
tax be not actually wanting for the purposes and objects above alluded to,
yet, that the system itself ought to be ])reserved, and ought never hereafter
to be abolished, because it will enable Government to extend her internal
improvements, add a large sum to the sinking fund, and, also, by preserving
the system, the machine can readily be put in motion whenever another war
or the energies of the Government may demand.
"The first point which I shall endeavor to prove, Mr. Chairman, wall be,
that the sum contemplated to be raised by the direct tax, for the purposes
mentioned by those who are in favor of the tax, is not necessary to effectu-
ate those objects. Secondly, even if it should be necessary, sooner than the
tax should continue, it would be better to reduce the standing army from ten
to six thousand, which reduction would relieve the treasury from an annual
demand of nearly the net proceeds of the direct tax. I shall also endeavor
to show that if the tax be not necessary to enable the Government to meet
the demands against her, it ought to be repealed as a very unwise and
odious tax ; one oppressive in its collection to the Government and oppress-
ive to the people. I shall, in discussing the several points, in passing along,
notice such observations as occur to me, and I deem materially pertinent to
the point, which were made in opposition to the doctrine I now contend for.
And lastly, as we have in this House heard much of national glory, and in
what it consists, particularly from the gentleman from South Carolina, I shall
give, as briefly as I can, what constitutes the national glory of a Republican
Government. As to the first point I propose to establish, permit me, before
I enter into an enumeration of facts relating to the demands against the
Government, and which she will be bound annually to pay, and also of the
probable receipts of the treasury, to inform this House that I have no data
to make my calculation from except those furnished by the Secretary of the
Treasury ; and I am induced to believe that his statements of facts, so far
as I rely upon them, to prove the points I contend for, will not be doubted,
for when he makes his estimates from conjecture they are made, it is evident,
as unfavorable to my side of the question as he could possibly make them.
* * * ^ ^ * * ;i<
"To get the money, Mr. Chairman, into the public coffers is the object;
to apply it to the sinking fund is the pretext for getting it ; thus the real
object in collecting the money may be three or four-fold. First, to have
money at hand to squander it away upon flatterers and favorites. Secondly,
to keep up the system of taxation to strengthen the executive by the addi-
tional means of distributing offices, and, perhaps, added to these reasons
SPEECH ON THE DIRECT TAX. 57
there may be some little reluctance at seeing some favorites go out of office
who are now in, and who must be turned out if this law be repealed; or per-
.adventure, though the idea I acknowledge is somewhat romantic, to give the
heir apparent when he fills the Presidential chair (Mr. Monroe) the popular-
ity attendant upon the repeal of such odious laws, which will be the means
of insuring his re-election. But we are told, Mr. Chairman, that this reso-
lution, to which I propose the amendment, is only for one year ; this is only
sugaring the pill to make us take the medicine the better, for if it be neces-
sary for one year it is necessary for years to come. It will be recollected by
the House, that on account of the peace the receipts of the treasury for
1815 were upward of $13,000,000 more than the demands against the Gov-
ernment, and also the receipts which will accrue before the double duties
expire, which is in June, 1816, will bring such a sum into the treasury as will
enable the Government to meet the extraordinary demands against her,
which demands consist in the appropriations this session to pay off the
demands, due the army and the treasury notes now in circulation. The sec-
retary, in his report, says that it is not necessary to legislate for one year
only ; that the treasury is competent to meet all the extraordinary demands
against it this year.
"But if it were otherwise, and it were necessary to reduce our expenses
Avithin the income from duties on commerce, Mr. Hardin said, he would reduce
the army. He was aware that, in approaching this subject, he touched a
hornet's nest, and perhaps would be stung. The army, which in 1802 was
deemed so hurtful, was now the favorite, because by its means our friends
get into office, and we must have an army of ten thousand men ; that is, on
paper. It was not cared whether we had the men, so that we have the offi-
cers and the surgeons, contractors, etc. So that we have the hulk of this
mammoth, we care little for the blood and sinews. No, Mr. Hardin said,
the ranks of the army are not filled. During the late war, though we had sixty
thousand men on paper, we had at no time twenty-five thousand in the field.
We had plenty of officers — so many ot them that he had heard a suggestion
that they ought to be reduced and organized so as to assist to fill the vacant
Tanks. He was, he said, for reducing the army to six thousand men. But
the House was told the army must not be reduced ; that the defense of the
nation ought to be regarded as a primary object. Certainly; but was it to
depend upon a standing army? Let me remark, said he, that this argument
is inconsistent with the genius of our Government, which requires us to
depend upon the militia for our defense. For that object every citizen is a
soldier. Whenever this people can not defend their liberties, then has the
body politic become rotten, then may we bid farewell to liberty. But it is
said that these ten thousand men are necessary for garrison service. Where,
he asked, were garrisons necessary? If they were necessary for the whole
country, from the district of Maine to the mouth of the Mississippi, there
eg BEN HARDIN.
ought to be a hundred thousand instead of ten thousand men. What are
three or four hundred men in this or that sjjot for the purposes of defense
against an invading en.emy ? Mr. Hardin said he would hke to see a garrison
at New Orleans and at one or two posts on the frontier. But of what account
would be a few at one place and a few at another? Thert was a regiment at
Prairie du Chien ; of what account are they? These Indians have no dread
of permanent garrisons, but of mounted riflemen. What could a few decrepit
men do against a horde of acdve and vigorous Indians ? But we are to have
not only this force, but the executive project of an invalid corps of two
thousand men, to be used for garrison service, and we are to put these one-
legged and one-armed men to watcli the Indians on the Wabash, who flit
about like ghosts— here to-day, there to-morrow ; who can travel a hundred
miles in a night on an emergency ; who have an open frontier if they wish
to come, to which garrisons at two hundred miles apart afford but little pro-
tection. These Indians dread a contest with the United States ; they know
the people of the West only wish an opportunity to crush them, and that they
have the ability to do it. Where, then, said Mr. Hardin, are we to employ
our ten thousand men ? Against Spain, says the Speaker ; for, somewhere
or other, either at a ball, party, sleighing match, or in a hack, the Spanish
minister had signified something about the Floridas. What did he say, or
where did he say it, no one knows. The story about this talk of the Spanish
minister put him in mind of the preacher who gave notice that he should
begin at such a point on Kentucky river and preach all the way down from
day to day, and the particulars of that story were about as well defined.
" But if it were true, was this to be held up as an object of terror to us?
Proclaim, said Mr. Hardin, to the people that Mexico is free soil, that the
land on Red river will be theirs if they conquer it, and the Western peopie
will swarm upon it like the locusts upon Egypt. These ten thousand regulars
are not wanted for that purpose ; the Spaniards would not be a breakfast for
us. But these men are to be kept up. Why? Because the Spanish peo-
ple have rebelled against their own government in the provinces. The very
circumstance of the rebellion is the strongest reason why Spain should be
friendly toward us. She knows, if the United States were to march its forces
there, the standard of liberty would be everyw^here erected. This, then, is
no reason for keeping up the army. But, it is said, the affairs of Europe are
unsetded. When were they ever more setded ? When the army was reduced
during Jefferson's administration? Mr. Hardin said he believed not. We
are under no obligations to engage in every contest which arises in Europe.
Wiiat power in Europe, he asked, has a disposition to invade us? None.
What danger menaces us from any quarter ? None. Why, then, keep up
an army to fight windmills ? Are the double and trii)le alliances to be the
order of the day, such as those of George I.? Mr. Hardin said he abhorred
them and we had no business with them.
SPEECH ON THE DIRECT TAX.
59
''But the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Clay) had said, instead of
diminishing, he would have increased, the army. Was it possible that the
gentleman had lost his old ideas on this subject ? Was it necessary to the
safety of this republican government to maintain large standing armies? Or
was it, Mr. Hardin said, that the gentleman had snuffed the tainted gales
from the plains of Waterloo, and was disposed to fight and to negotiate with
every nation ? During Washington's administration the army had never been
as high as even eight thousand men ; and there was less danger now than
then. The powers of Europe had as little regard to justice then as now. We
were then weak compared to what we are now, and more inviting to foreign
invasion, as being an easier prey. When we have increased from three to
eight millions, can we be in greater danger than we were then, when a smaller
force was deemed sufficient? Every means of offense and defense have pro-
portionately increased with our population. The importance and magnitude
of the establishments in Europe have increased, it is said. In name they
may, but they are not in effect as strong; we shall soon see the military pow-
ers, drawn together by a common object to put down Bonaparte, plunge
their daggers in each other's bosom. Mr. Hardin said his hair did not stand
on end at the glimmer of moonlight through the trees. These fears, which
had been expressed by other gentlemen in debate, might arise from minds a
little distempered by too great a desire to preserve the nation. Mr. Hardin said
he was opposed to a standing army on principle; and the more so, because
all the train of bloodsuckers about it were to be sustained by taxes on the
people. Down with the whole system, said he ; down with it, like Lucifer,
never to rise again ; and let us depend on militia, well trained and well dis-
ciplined — on militia, happy at home ; not a militia who are ground down by
taxes — a militia, not like dogs and spaniels, that the more you chastise them
the more they like you. Militia must be disciplined ; but they will not fight
without affection to their country, created by an attention on your part to their
interests. There are two kinds of patriotism, Mr. Hardin said — the clam-
orous whip-syllabub patriotism — one rain will wash it all off; and the other,
that of the man who reaps his own harvest, cuts his own grain, and uses it
after it is cut ; the man who has a fireside and a farm of his own, who, like
the Scythian, refuses to go from home to fight, but will fight to the death if
an invader comes to his father's tomb. Carthage had a standing army, and
she fell. Rome had but a militia, and defended herself. The instant she
established a standing army, disorder, confusion, and mobs ensued, and she
soon became, by means of her military champions, a prey to the veriest des-
pots the world ever knew. These are the effects of standing armies, to main-
tain which the direct tax is to be retained. I have made these remarks with
a view of showing that we ought to get rid of these taxes, even at the
expense of this governmental favorite. If necessary, let us strangle it. Mr.
Hardin said, however, he would not go the length of some gentlemen in their
^O r.EN HARDIN.
ideas of economy. He was in favor of a gradual increase of the navy, one
consistent with our means, and for all those expenditures which a liberal,
not a profuse, i)olicy will require.
"Mr. Hardin proceeded to examine the merits of this tax, to show that
if it could at all be dispensed with, it ought to be put down. The money
arising from the direct tax was the most expensive that ever came into the
treasury; it is put down as costing three hundred thousand dollars in
the collection; but, Mr. Hardin said, he would venture to say that the
actual cost of collection would be found to be not less than four or five
hundred thousand dollars, what with your collectors, commissioners of the
revenue, and a hundred other officers. Was it not important that contribu-
tions should not be levied in this inconvenient and expensive mode? If
the money must be collected, why not find a way of loosing the purse-strings
more conveniently? If money be collected by indirect taxes, the consumer
has the option whether or not he will buy the articles so taxed, whether he
will run his stills or not. He has an option, and this of itself sweetens his
feelings.
But, when the proud, official, strutting, consequential character, the deputy
collector, waits upon him with his saddle-bags upon his arm, and takes his
bed from under him to pay the direct tax, he feels indignant, and wishes he
had not been born in such a government. Besides, the direct tax is that tax
by which the State governments are, and always must be, supported. Is
this mode of taxation selected in order to let the people know who protects
them? Surely not. This was a tax, hateful to the people, and subjecting
them to innumerable frauds. The best half of the men employed in this
business of collecting a few cents from one, a few from another, and so on,
were scoundrels and cheats, and would not stop at doubling the amount of
the tax they ought to collect from a man who was not well enough informed
to detect their roguery. Fortunately, or unfortunately, it had been his
duty, as a professional man, to detect practices of this kind. These col-
lectors, he said, were something like the man's son whose father told him to
make money, honestly, if he could, but to make money. Most of them
cared but little how they made it. The direct tax is a costly, odious, and