Southern States had not so direct and deep an interest in its annexation as the West; but it would seem, from language held on this occasion, that, in all this I was mistaken, and that the annexation of Texas was purely a Southern question, and only supported by the West under the expectation of obtaining in return the support of the South to the whole of Oregon up to 54° 40', and, if necessary, at the certain hazard of a war.

But, passing by all this, and assuming that Texas was purely a Southern, and Oregon a Western question, I repel the charge of partiality, and shall now proceed to show that, if a different line of policy was pursued by me in reference to the two, it was because it was right and proper it should be. I treated both questions in the manner best calculated to effect the object in view, and indeed the only one by which both could be secured. The circumstances of the two cases were entirely different. In the case of Texas, time was against us, in that of Oregon, time was with us; and hence the difference in my course of policy in reference to them. To understand the difference it is necessary to premise, that Texas had reached that period in her history when it was clear that she would be compelled to form intimate and dependent relations either with us or England, if she continued independent. But it was manifest, if left alone, without any movement on our part, that her connection must be with England and not with us. She could extend to Texas commercial advantages far greater than we possibly could; and afford her greater facilities in obtaining means to relieve her from her great pecuniary embarrassments. England saw this, and had actually commenced her movements to avail herself of its advantages. We, too, perceived it; and also that annexation afforded the only means of counteracting her movements, and preventing Texas from being placed exclusively under her control. In this emergency, I was called to the State Department, with a view of taking charge of the

pending negotiation for annexation. I saw that the time had arrived when immediate and decided action was required; that time was against us, and that, to resist the effects of its operation, boldness and decision were indispensable. I acted accordingly, and success proved the soundness of my policy. It was not a case for masterly inactivity. Not so the case of Oregon,-where time was with us ;-and hence the different line of policy which I adopted in reference to it, and which would have secured the whole, had my advice been followed, as has been explained.

In one particular my policy was the same in both cases. I aimed in each to avoid war and preserve peace. I clearly perceived that, in annexing Texas, there was no danger of a war with England, if managed judiciously. She was an independent state, and had been so acknowledged by England, France, and other powers. She had a right, as such, to dispose of herself, and to unite her destinies with ours, if she saw proper, without any right on the part of England to resist it, or ground or pretext to make war in consequence. I also perceived that there were no just grounds to apprehend a Mexican war in consequence. She was not in a condition to make war, without the aid of England, and there was no reason to apprehend that she would be aided or countenanced in it by the latter; unless, indeed, the Oregon question should terminate in a war between us and her,-in which event, I regarded a Mexican war as inevitable, as has been stated. Thus far my anticipations have been realized-Texas annexed, and peace preserved, by the policy which I pursued. A different line of policy-one which would have permitted England to obtain the ascendency over Texas, which she would have acquired without annexation,-would have inevitably led to a state of things, involving us and England finally in war. It would have been impossible to prevent feelings of jealousy and enmity from growing up between us and Texas. The very similarity of our character and pursuits,

VOL. IV.-19

and the rivalry which they would give birth to, would necessarily lead to that result; while the long and ill-defined boundary between the two countries, extending for more than a thousand miles through forests, prairies, and navigable rivers, without a natural boundary in any part, would produce frequent collisions between our people and those of Texas. Controversies and conflicts would have been the result. Texas, as the weaker power, would throw herself upon Great Britain for support; and wars, frequent and bloody wars, between us and her would have followed. removed these causes of war.

Annexation has fortunately Should the Oregon controversy

terminate in peace, every cause of war between the two countries would be removed, leaving the prospect of lasting peace between them.

REMARKS

On the Bill making alterations in the Pay Department of the Army, &c.; made in the Senate, May 14th, 1846.

[MR. DIX, in calling up the Bill, having explained briefly its provisions, an incidental discussion arose on the power of removal, in which various Senators participated. Among these, Mr. Sevier, of Arkansas, animadverted, with some warmth, on the course of parties, at the commencement of every new administration, in regard to the question of removal. In the course of his remarks, he referred to the practice under the administration of Mr. Tyler,-implicating Mr. Calhoun, as a member of the cabinet. We copy a portion of the debate, in order to present the views of Mr. C.-as well as to preserve documents which may be of use to the future historian.]

MR. CALHOUN rose to say, that when he went into the Department of State, under Mr. Tyler, he was in entire

ignorance of the practice spoken of. He knew nothing about it, and had always been opposed to the practices charged upon Mr. Tyler in regard to removals. He condemned it as much in him as any other, and the Senator from Arkansas was one of the last on that floor from whom he would expect such a charge to come.

[Mr. Sevier made a few remarks; among the rest, he observed that Mr. Tyler continued to make removals down to the very last day he was in office.]

Mr. Calhoun again arose, and reminded the Senator from Arkansas, that he (Mr. C.) had already condemned the practice. Mr. Tyler was in the habit of making his own removals and appointments, and was told by him (Mr. C.) that it was a new and unwarranted practice, and one to which, had he been a new member of the administration, he would not consent.

[Mr. Morehead asked permission to make one remark. He (Mr. M.), as a member of his committee, had occasion to be up occasionally at the State Department during Mr. Tyler's administration, and happened to know something of the views of the honorable Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Calhoun), and he remembered the opinions expressed then to him by the honorable Senator were exactly the same with those expressed on that occasion to the Senate.

Mr. Sevier then went on to say, that in making the remarks he had made, he supposed the action of the Executive was the action of all parts of it. He referred to no particular person-not to the Senator from South Carolina, but to the administration of which he formed a part. He said again, that the subject of removals was a general subject of remark. When a new party came into power, they had the old story that was begun in 1789, renewed in 1833, and continued in 1836, and so on down till the present. He thought, however, that the Democrats had consistency on their side to say nothing about it in 1841.

After some further remarks from Mr. Sevier, Mr. Webster rose and said :

The few observations which had been made to-day on the bill by him, whether right or wrong, were not intended to apply to any individual. The honorable Senator from Arkansas would do him the justice to say that he (Mr. W.) did not impute to any administration, or the whole succession of administrations, any thing in the nature of a charge of having carried the practice of removal from office further than their predecessors or successors. The Senator would admit, he was sure, that the remarks he submitted were devoid of all personality. And now he would take occasion to say, that it was not like the answer of a statesman to what he (Mr. W.) had advanced, for the gentleman to say that the administration in which he (Mr. W.) had borne a part had done so. Suppose that to be true. Why, if the administration, of which he might happen to think very well, in some respects at least, had been induced to follow a bad practice, that was only a stronger reason why the practice should be put an end to. No reason had been shown why an individual in a subordinate situation in an administration ought to be held responsible for its policy. But, perhaps, there was another remark which he might make with all respect. The administration to which the gentleman referred—he should have said, perhaps that administration did make some changes in office not altogether disagreeable to the gentleman himself,

MR. SEVIER. Certainly; and I stood by him to the last.

MR. WEBSTER. And the honorable gentleman had good reason for it. But it was said that the opposite doctrine to that of removal led to life-holders of office, &c. Far, far otherwise was the whole truth. This Government recognized no life officers but judges, and they were subject to the qualifications of good behavior, of course. The independence of the Judiciary Department was supposed, by those who framed the constitution, best secured by giving an independent tenure of office; and, however the opinion may have changed in certain parts of the country, it was certainly still the established one within the bounds of the old thirteen States. They borrowed it from the English law, about the accession of George I. In the bill which, in 1836, passed the Senate, and to which he had referred, it was not proposed, after the lapse of so many years, to oppose the construction which enables the President to remove from office. The object of the bill introduced by the honorable Senator from South Carolina, and which he then had before him, was as he had stated, and he would refer to it as it was short.