Christ; there, sir, they will be robed as white as we are, and we are to answer for our treatment to them here. I hope my colleague will not press that amendment; it is at war with every feeling of my heart. They have the same inheritance in the blood of Christ that we have, and we are bound to treat them with humanity.

"Sir, what does the amendment propose? That you have a right to send them into banishment, or involuntary servitude, for crime. Then, sir, if you carry that amendment, we have a right to define crime. Now, I deny the policy of that, and I deny the right of it. And you are to sell them out of the State, not as a punishment to keep them from crime hereafter, but you are to subject them to slavery upon what we, the whites, call crime. Sir, I object to this.

If we acquire any

"But it is said we may transport them. I deny it. Can you send your officers with a human being beyond the limits of this State? Have you jurisdiction to send a gang of negroes to any place in the United States? No, sir. But the gentleman says we may send them to some country which we may acquire. But we can not acquire any country. country from foreign nations, it is forbidden by the constitution of the United States, which provided that no State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation, grant letters of marque and reprisal, coin money, emit bills of credit, make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts, pass any bill of attainer, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.'

"Now, sir, no State can make any treaty with any foreign nation. There is no reservation of such a power. Can we make any negotiations with any lawful prince or king of Africa to which we may banish negroes and make it a kind of Botany Bay? No, sir, we can not do it at all. This is a matter which Congress itself can not do. Congress can not appropriate money for the purpose of colonizing negroes; it is not within the power of Congress to do it; and that is the reason why the federal government has never taken up the subject. It is provided in the federal Constitution that 'Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises,' to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, but it has no power to appropriate money for the purposes of colonization at all; and that, sir, has been decided over and over again. She can pay debts and provide for the general welfare of the nation. By the 'general welfare of the nation,' is meant an implied power given to the general government for the purposes of carrying the expressed powers into effect. That is the whole of it; and, whenever you go beyond that, Congress is omnipotent as the British Parliament, consisting of kings, lords, and

commons.

"But, sir, Congress has no power to appropriate money to send negroes to Liberia. I again repeat, I beg, I beseech, I conjure, my colleague not to

press this amendment. He may have the power, and the House may agree with him, but I dɔ think it would be a reproach to this convention in the eyes of posterity for hundreds of years to come. Suppose, sir, a negro gets drunk; you call it a crime, and sell him into servitude. Suppose he steals a chicken; you call it a crime, and sell him into servitude for life. Suppose he goes fishing on the Sabbath; you call it a crime, and sell him into servitude. Why, sir, you may make anything a crime if you please. Let the free negroes take the same laws that we have. If they commit murder, let them

be hung; if they commit other crimes, let them go to jail or the penitentiary. Debar them of any political rights-I am against that; debar them of any social rights-I am against their intermixing with the white population at all. When you have done that, you have done all. They have no political rights or power; and when we have the power we are bound to protect them. In the language of Ulysses, when he bowed in his rags:

"A suppliant bends, Oh! pity human woe,
'Tis what the happy to the unhappy owe."

CHAPTER XXXIV.

MR. HARDIN'S OPINIONS ON SUNDRY SUBJECTS.

INGLE instances of the extent of vision demonstrate the power of

not need its subsequent illustrations for support. Similarly, a man of wit and sense may exhibit his powers in a sentence. A few opinions of Mr. Hardin have been gathered which are characteristic, and it is believed will enable the reader to better apprehend the man. They are submitted without any special order, their dissimilar and fragmentary character not allowing any logical arrangement.

Alluding to the legal aphorism, "That it is better that ninety and nine guilty men should escape rather than one innocent man be pun ished for crime," Mr. Hardin observed, "I never saw an innocent man convicted, while I have seen a thousand guilty men escape. I believe that ninety-nine guilty scoundrels escape for every one that is punished."

He expressed, half a century ago, a view of the form of the British government, novel then, but more familiar now: "There never was a nation in the world that, except in name and a great many forms, perhaps, was more republican than Great Britain. The crown does not interfere with the acts of parliament at all. It is not responsible for anything that is done-for the king, in the language of their government, can do no wrong. The reason is, that he does nothing. His ministers are responsible for all that is done wrong, and they get credit for all that is done right."

His distinction "In a monarchy,

He was always perspicuous in his definitions. between a monarchy and republic is elementary. the power is all in the king, and the people have none except what is ceded, and, hence, there are frequent controversies. The people claim power as it is conceded, which the king denies. The king claims his power as a prerogative, for he is the fountain of power, and the people have what he grants, and no more. In a republic, the fountain of all power is in the people, and the officers have as much power as the people grant, and no more. What would be a prerogative in the king, is power in the people."

He entertained an exalted opinion of the French nation and its people. The enthusiastic sentiments of friendship among Americans for Frenchmen dated its origin from the darkest days of the revolution. The folly that culminated in the disaster of Sedan has weakened the admiration this side of the Atlantic formerly felt for France. Mr. Hardin thus expressed the sentiments entertained by a majority of his countrymen in 1849: "Well, God bless the French nation; the French convention was a great thing. It was composed of a powerful set of men, and it struggled and was convulsed in its effort for liberty. Their king turned against them, and their queen and nobility did the same. All Europe declared war against them, and what did the French convention do? They accepted battle with the whole united crowned heads of Europe, and in the language of Danton— 'the gauge of battle was the head of a king thrown down.""

One of his arguments against vesting the governor of the State with an extensive appointing power, was based on the great local influence at the seat of government. This, he urged, gave undue advantage to those residing there. He spoke thus in the constitutional convention on this subject: "We are not made of such stern and obdurate stuff that we can not be operated upon here. We can be softened down sometimes forty ways. There are a great many ways in which a young man can be softened down. I will not enumerate them all. Why was it the seat of government was taken away

from New Orleans? It was because the local power was too influential for the people. It was, in consequence, taken to Baton Rouge. Why was it taken from Philadelphia? It was because the local power was too great for the balance of the people to trust it there. Why was it removed from the city of New York? For the same reason.

All his life he was jealous of the superior influence of towns and cities over the agricultural districts, in affairs of government and legislation. He evinced this feeling in his speech in Congress on the Alexandria canal bill, referred to in former pages of this work.* The same sentiment prompted him in the constitutional convention of 1849 to favor a restriction on the representation of cities. A warm debate with James Guthrie (alluded to elsewhere) originated over this question. Speaking of Louisville, he said: "It is as we know a city of great influence in the State. There was always a town that stood as the metropolis of every State. That town is the one to which our exports go and whence our imports come, and from this and other causes it has an immense influence in the legislation of the country.

See Chapter XIX.

It is the point to which all news is brought and the newspapers give it great and undue influence."

In a speech in the constitutional convention, replying to Hon. William Preston, who had eulogized the city of Louisville, he said: "The gentleman from Louisville has spoken exceedingly well and in fine taste and style. He said that Louisville had a large portion of wealth-that Louisville is wealthy and that Jefferson county is so also. It is true. It is fortunately situated in the State of Kentucky. It is the garden spot of America. But much of that is owing to its position and locality. It seems to me, though, that it ought not to be

Aaron's rod and swallow up the rods of the other magicians.'

To those residing out of Kentucky, a treat is in store when some adequate pen shall write the history of the agitation in the State for the removal of the capital from its present location. From generation to generation this strife has progressed, with fair prospect of continuing far out toward the boundless shores of eternity. The debate on the question, however, does not seem at all amusing to the Kentucky tax-payer, when he reflects that the drafts on the State treasury to pay for those discussions would aggregate a sum sufficient to erect an edifice eclipsing in magnificence the sculptured grandeur of ancient Athens.

There were reasons disconnected with the question of capital removal-not to be mentioned here-why Mr. Hardin did not think kindly of Frankfort. The main capital building, unchanged since the time he spoke, he thus described: "If this miserable building, drawn after a Grecian temple, and looking for all the world from across the bridge (which it fronts) like the end of another bridge to the hill back of here-and which is a disgrace to the State-if it should take fire, in the name of God, let it burn. We have had two capitols burned down, and a meeting-house or two used as such, and I don't care how soon we get rid of this mean, contemptible, bridgelooking edifice."

He was opposed to foreign immigration. His opposition did not in the least rest on the apprehension of danger from the control of a foreign spiritual power-as professed by a political party that sprung into life a few years after his death. At the very time he was professing this opposition, he, in common with the whole people, were tendering enthusiastic welcome to Kossuth, the Hungarian exile, then a visitor in America. His reason for opposition to foreign immigra"I pity the poor Irish, the oppressed' Eng

tion he thus expressed: