Resurrecting the First American West

New-Orleans, August 21st, 1822.

I tender to you the following prices current, which are nearly, or quite correct. This market is now in a very depressed and stagnant state. Within the last month, very few buyers have appeared, and will not touch, unless at very low prices. Nor do I perceive a probable prospect of improvement, until the arrival of more abundant shipping and purchasers during, the months of October and November - and then it is very improbable that prices will be better, inasmuch, as the large quantity of produce now on hand will, without detention, afford ample cargoes for the vessels which may arrive in the early part of the next season of business: and afterward, quick despatch is expected in obtaining cargoes from arrivals of the new crop. Unless prices be improved by the above contigencies, none will occur. And if there be an improvement, it can be only momentary. The aggregate crop of the United States in 1821, has turned out a much larger yield, than was expected by myself and all others - and the growing crop, by advices from all the cotton states, promises to be much more abundant, than that of 1821. Therefore, unless the consumption of cotton and cotton goods be increased much more extensively, than probable calculation anticipates, prices cannot permanently improve.

The sales of last week embrace altogether 522 bales of North Alabama:

I present for your information a comparative estimate of the aggregate crop of cotton in the United States in the years 1820 and 1821, which exhibits an increase of 45,000 bales in the crop of the last year. The quantity exported from North-Carolina and from Darien in Georgia, is not embraced in the estimate, because I am unadvised.

Intending to be absent from the city three months, Mr. John Wilie will represent me during my absence: who has resided here many years, been employed in the most respectable houses, and is universally esteemed a most upright man.

With my respectful salutations, I tender to you and your friends, my services as commercial agent, and solicit your correspondence; and remain your ob't serv't.

J. R. Bedford

P. S. Since the foregoing was written sales of cotton in the first three days of this week have been at a decline of 1/4 to 1/2 cent from the prices of last week.

We are told that we may violate our constitution, because fimiliar constitutions have been violated elsewhere. Two states have been cited to that effect, Maryland and Virginia. The hon. gentleman from Virginia tells us that when this happened in the state he belongs to, no complaint was made by the judges. I will not enquire into that fact, although I have the protest of the judges now lying before me. Judges eminent for their learning, respectable for their virtue. I will not enquire what constitutions have been violated. I will not ask either when or where this dangerous practice began, or has been followed. I will admit the fact. What does it prove? Does it prove that because they have violated, we also may violate? Does it not prove directly the contrary? Is it not the strongest reason on earth for preserving the independence of our tribunals? If it be true that they have with strong hand seized their courts, and bent them to their will, ought we not to give suitors a fair chance for justice in our courts, or must the suffering citizen be deprived of all protection?

The gentleman from Virginia has called our attention to certain cases which he considers as forming necessary exceptions to the principles for which we contend. Permit me to say that necessity is a bad law; and frequently proves too much; and let the gentleman recollect that arguments which prove too much prove nothing.

He has instanced a case where it may be proper to appoint commissioners for a limited time to settle some particular discription of controversies. Undoubtedly it is always in the power of congress to form a board of commissioners for particular purposes. He asks are these inferior courts, & must they also exist forever? I answer that the nature of their offices must depend on the law by which they are created, if called to exercise the judicial functions designated by the consitution they must have an existence conformable to its injunctions.

Again he has instanced the Missisippi Territory, claimed by, and which may be surrendered to the state of Georgia, & a part of the union which may be conquered by a foreign enemy. And he asks triumphantly are our inferior courts to remain after our jurisdiction is gone? This case rests upon a principle so simple that I am surprised the honorable member did not perceive the answer in the very moment when he made the objection. Is it by our act that a country is taken from us by a foreign enemy? Is it by our consent that our jurisdiction is lost? I had the honor, in speaking the other day, expressly and for the most obvious reasons, to except the case of conquest. As well might we contend for the government of a town swallowed up by an earthquake.

General Mason explained - He had supposed the case of territory conquered and afterwards ceded to the conquerer, or some other territory ceded in lieu of it.

Mr. Morris, The case is precisely the same. Until after the peace the conquest is not complete. Every body knows that until the cession by treaty, the original owner has the postliminary right to a territory taken from him - Beyond all question where congress are compelled to cede the territory, the judges can no longer exist unless the new sovereign confer the office. Over such a territory the authority of the constitution ceases, and of course the rights which it confers.

It is laid, the judicial institution is intended for the benefit of the people, and not of the judge; and it is complained of, that in speaking of the office, we say it is his office. Undoubtedly the institution is for the benefit of the people. But the question remains how will it be rendered most beneficial? Is it by making the judge independent, by making it his office, or is it by placing him in a state of abject dependence, so that the office shall be his to-day and belong to another to- morrow? Let the gentleman hear the words of the constitution; it speaks of their offices, consequently as applied to a single judge of his office, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the people of America, to which exercise his independence is as necessary as his office.

The gentleman from Virginia has on this occasion likened the judge to a bridge, and to various other objects; but I hope for his pardon, if while I admire the lofty flights of his eloquence, I abstain from noticing observations which I conceive to be utterly irrelevant.

The fame hon. member has not only given us his history of the supreme court, but has told us of the manner in which they do business, and expressed his fears that having little else to do, they will do mischief. - We are not competent, sir, to examine, nor ought we to prejudge, their conduct. I am persuaded that they will do their duty, and presume they will have the decency to believe that we do our duty. In so far as they may be busied with the great mischief of checking the legislative or executive departments in any wanton invasion of our rights, I shall rejoice in that mischief. - I hope indeed they will not be so busied, because I hope we shall give them no cause. But also I hope they will keep an eagle eye upon us left we should. It was partly for this purpose they were established, and I trust that when properly called on they will dare to act. I know this doctrine is unpleasant. I know it is more popular to appeal to public opinion, that equivocal, transient being, which exists no where and every where. But if ever the occasion call for it, I trust that the supreme court will not neglect doing the great mischief of having this constitution, which can be done much better by their deliberations, than by resorting to what are called revolutionary measures.

The hon. member from NorthCarolina, sore prest by the delicate situation in which he is placed, thinks he has discovered a new argument in favor of the vote which he is instructed to give. As far as I can enter into his ideas, and trace their progress, he seems to have assumed the position which was to be proved, and then searched through the constitution, not to discover whether the legislature have the right contended for, but whether, admitting them to possess it, there may not be something which might comport with that idea. I shall state the honorable member's arguments, as I understand it, and if mistaken pray to be corrected. He read to us that clause which relates to impeachment, and comparing it with that which fixes the tenure of judicial office, has observed that this clause must relate solely to a removal by the executive power whose right to re move though not indeed any where mentioned in the constitution, has been admitted in a practice founded on legislative construction.

That is the tenure of the office is during good behavior, be as the clause respecting impeachment, does not specify misbehavior, there is evidently a cause of removal, which cannot be reached by impeachment, & of course (the executive not being permitted to remove) the right must necessarily devolve on the legislature. Is this the honorable member's argument? If it be, the reply is very simple. Misbehavor is not a term known in our law. - The idea is expressed by the word misdemeanor; which word is in the clause quoted respecting impeachment. Taking therefore the two together, and speaking plain old English, the constitution says: 'The judges shall hold their offices as long as they shall demean themselves well, but if they shall misdemean, if they shall on impeachment be convicted of misdemeanor, they shall be removed. Thus, sir, the honorable member will find that the one clause is just as broad as the other. He will see, therefore, that the legislature can assume no right from the deficiency of either, and will find that this clause which he relied on goes, if rightly understood, to the confirmation of our doctrine.

Is there a member of this house, who can lay his hand on his heart and say that consistently with the plain words of our constitution, we have a right to repeal this law? I believe not. And if we undertake to construe this constitution to our purposes, and say that public opinion is to be our judge, there is an end to all constitutions. To what will not this dangerous doctrine lead? Should it to day be the popular wish to destroy the first magistrate, you can destroy him. And should he to-morrow be able to conciliate to him the popular will, & lead them to wish for your destruction, it is easily effected. Adopt this principle, and the whim of the mo ment will not only be the law, but the constitution of our country.

The gentleman from Virginia has mentioned a great nation brought to the feet of one of her servants. But why is she in that situation? Is it not because popular opinion was called on to decide every thing, until those, who wore bayonets, decided for all the rest. Our situation is peculiar. At present our national compact can prevent a state from acting hostile towards the general interest. But let this compact be destroyed and each state becomes instantaneously vested with absolute sovereignty. - Is there no instance of a similar situation to be found in history? Look at the states of Greece. They were once in a condition not unlike to that in which we should then stand. They treated the recommendations of their Amphictionic Council (which was more a meeting of ambassadors than a legislative assembly) as we did the resolutions of the old congress. Are we wise? So were they. - Are we valient? They also were brave. - Have we one common language, and are we united under one head? In this also there is a strong resemblance. But by their divisions, they became at first victims of the ambition of Philip, and were at length swallowed up in the Roman empire. Are we to form an exception to the general principles of human nature, and to all the examples of history? Are are the maxims of experience to become false, when applied to our fate?

Some, indeed, flatter themselves, that our distiny will be like that of Rome. Such indeed it might be if we had the same wise but vile aristocracy under whose guidance they became the masters of the world. But we have not that strong aristocratic arm, which can seize a wretched citizen, scourged almost to death by a remorseless creditor, turn him into the ranks, and bid him as a soldier bear our Eagle in triumph round the globe. I hope to God we shall never have such an abominable institution. But what, I ask, will be the situation of these States (organized as they now are) if by the dissolution of our national compact they be left to themselves? What is the probably result? We shall either be the victims of foreign intrigue, and split into factions, fall under the denomination of a foreign power, or else after the misery and torment of civil war, become the subjects of an usurping military despot. What but this compact? What but the specific part of it, can save us from ruin? The judicial power; that fortress of the constitution, is now to be overturned. Yes, with honest Ajax I would not only throw a shield before it, I would build around it a wall of brass. But I am too weak to defend the rampart against the host of assailants. I must call to my assistance, their good sense, their patriotism, and their virtue. Do not, gentlemen, suffer the rage of passion to drive reason, from her seat. If this law be indeed bad, let us join to remedy the defects. Has it been passed in a manner which wounded your pride, or roused your resentment? Have, I conjure you, the magnanimity to pardon that offence. I entreat, I emplore you, to sacrifice those angry passions to the interests of our country. Pour out this price of opinion on the alter of patriotism. Let it be an expiatory libation for the weal of America. Do not, for God's sake, do not suffer that pride to plunge us all into the abyss of ruin. Indeed, indeed, it will be but little, very little avail, whether one opinion or the other be right or wrong - it will heal no wound, it will pay no debts, it will rebuild no ravaged towns- Do not rely on that popular will, which has brought us frail beings into political existence? That opinion is but a changable thing. It will soon change. This very measure will change it. You will be deceived. Do not I beseech you, in reliance on a foundation so frail, commit the dignity, the harmony the existence of our nation to the wild wind. Trust not your treasure to the waves. Throw not your compass and your charts into the ocean. Do not believe that its billows will waft you into port. Indeed, indeed, you will be deceived. Oh, case not away this only anchor of our safety. I have seen its progress. I know the difficulties through which it was obtained. I stand in the presence of Almity God, and of the world. I declare to you, that if you lose this charter, never! no never! will you get another. We are now perhaps arrived at the parting point. Here, even here, we stand on the brink of fate. Pause - Pause - For heaven's sake pause!

Copy of the Convention between Lord Hawkesbury & Mr. King, Jan. 8, 1802.

Difficulties having arise in the execution of the 6th article of the treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation concluded at London, on the 14th of November, 1794, between his Britannic majesty and the United States of America, and inconsequence thereof, the proceedings of the commissioners under the 7th article of the same treaty having been suspended the parties to the said treaty being equally desirour as far as may be, to obviate such difficulties, have respectively named Plenipotentiaries to treat and agree, respecting the same: that is to say, his Britannic majesty, has named for his Plenipotentiary, the right honorable Robert Banks Jenkinson, commonly called Lord Hawkesbury, one of his majesty's most honorable privy council, and his principal secretary of state for foreign affairs; and the President