Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Joy each brow around me brightens,
Happiness each heart expands,
Hope my parents' bosom lightens,
As a bride my sister stands;
I alone no dreams can cherish,
No delusion lives for me,

O'er these towers, soon doomed to perish,
Vengeance hov'ring near I see.

"Torches glow with brightness splendid,
Not, alas, in Hymen's hand-
With the clouds the flames are blended,
Not the sacrificial brand;

And a feast is spread in gladness,
And in mirth and royal state,
Yet my heart, in gloomy sadness,
Hears the tread of coming fate.
"And they smile upon my anguish,
And they chide my flowing tears,
In the desert I must languish,
Lonely in my bosom's fears;
And the gay, unheeding, leave me,
The scornful laugh my woe to see;
Bitterly didst thou deceive me,
Pythian god!-most bitterly!

"Oh! a fatal lot has bound me
Darkening oracles to tell;

Why, when all are blind around me,
Why must I discern so well?
Why, with wisdom false and hollow,

Must I, unavailing, see?

Fate its fearful course will follow,

That which is decreed must be.

Why, from scenes of grief and terror,
Must the veil fall off for me?
Life was in the happy error,

In the knowledge death I see.
Take, oh take the gift for ever
That discloses naught but woe,
Henceforth, let a mortal never
Truth immortal seek to know.

[blocks in formation]

November, 1842.

"All around no sorrow knowing,
Warm and bright with life and love,
With the hopes of youth are glowing;
I alone no joy can prove.

Vainly spring new charms may borrow,
Deck with festive flowers the earth;
Who that fears the coming sorrow
Can enjoy the present mirth?

"What bright hopes my sister blessing,
Fill her heart with joy and pride,
When the noblest Greek, caressing,
Claims her as his promised bride.
In her bosom's exultation,

While fond visions glad her sight,
Little envies she the station,

Phœbus, of thy dwelling bright.

"And I, too, have seen before me
Him my heart would fain approve,
All his glances bright implore me,
Sparkling with the glow of love;
Willingly, with him uniting,

Would I pass life's varied scene,
But a Stygian shade affrighting,
Sternly, darkly glides between.

"All her pallid sprites arraying,
Proserpine has sent to me;
Wheresoe'er my steps are straying,
Spectres beck'ning, near I see:
With the sports of youth uniting,
Mingle an appalling train,
Joys and hopes for ever blighting,—
Peace I ne'er may know again.

"Now I see the weapon glitter,
And the eye of murder glow;
Fear and terror, dark and bitter,
In a tide around me flow.
Not a hope my soul can cherish,
Vainly fate I seek to fly,
Doomed to see my country perish,
In a stranger's land to die!"

Still her latest words vibrated,

When a murmured sound of dread

From the temple penetrated-
Thetis' gallant son lay dead!
Eris o'er the city towering,

Shakes her serpent locks with joy,
And the thunder darkly lowering,
Gathers o'er devoted Troy.

[blocks in formation]

H. M.

GENERAL JACKSON'S FINE.

EY A. KENDALL.

AT the recent session of Congress, several memorials were presented, asking that the fine of one thousand dollars imposed on General Jackson by Judge Hall, in 1815, for the enforcement of Martial Law in New Orleans, during the British invasion, might be refunded; and they have been followed by instructions from several States to the same effect. Senator Linn of Missouri, obedient to the same just and noble impulse, obtained leave and introduced a bill in the following words, viz. :

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That the proper accounting officers of the Treasury be, and they are hereby, directed to ascertain the amount of the penalty or damages awarded by the District Judge of the United States at New Orleans, in the year eighteen hundred and fifteen,

against Major-General Andrew Jackson, then Commander-in-chief of that district, for official acts in that capacity, and paid by him at the time; and that the sum so paid, with interest at six per cent. per annum, be paid to Major-General Andrew Jackson, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated."

This bill, let it be observed, does not undertake to decide whether General Jackson's conduct, in the transactions for which the fine was imposed, was right or wrong, legal or illegal, necessary severity or wanton oppression. Nor does it decide whether the conduct of the judge, in imposing the fine, was right or wrong, legal or illegal, necessary severity or wanton oppression.

Was there any man in Congress who thought General Jackson's conduct entirely legal?--he might vote for it. Was there any one who believed his acts illegal, but absolutely necessary to the defence of the city?-he might vote for it. Was there any one who believed that his acts were illegal and unnecessary, and yet that they flowed from the purest and most exalted motives?

he might vote for it? Was there any one who even believed that the motives actuating him at the moment were not good, but that his offence was atoned for by his subsequent submission to the authority by Judge Hall?-he might vote for it. Was there any one who thought the General wrong in every respect of the question, and yet felt that it was unworthy a great nation to profit by holding on upon a sum of money taken from the private property of a citizen who has won so much glory for his country and filled its highest offices?he might vote for it. Any man actuated by any motive which can excite and justify human action, might have voted for a bill thus drawn, without committing himself upon any point involved in the original controversy. Nor would it be reasonable to infer from such a vote, after the practice of this government from its origin, in remitting fines and forfeitures, and refunding damages assessed upon public officers for acts judicially decided to be in violation of law, that the person giving it intended to censure the Judge who imposed the fine. Every member of Congress might fully believe that both parties were actuated by the purest motives, and yet that the fines, forfeiture or damages, ought to be refunded. In this spirit, without doubt, many sums have been refunded to military officers as well as collectors of the customs and others, which were awarded by the courts for acts done by them in violation of the strict letter of law, but with pure motives and in an honest zeal to serve the public.

In Mr. Linn's Bill there was no imputation upon Judge Hall, who had imposed the fine, express or implied. No man could juslty infer from it, had it passed, that in the opinion of Congress Judge Hall acted illegally, vindictively or oppressively. In the absence of any preamble or declaration explaining the motives of Congress, it would have been considered like an ordinary case in which a collector or

other agent of the government from pure motives performs acts or exacts mcneys in violation of law, and Congress, though satisfied that the decision of the court is perfectly right, steps in to save a faithful public officer from harm on account of his innocent mistake and patriotic intent. It might have been expected, therefore, that this Bill would pass by acclamation. Such, however, was not its fate. It was first referred to the committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Berrien, the chairman of that committee, reported it back to the Senate, with a statement that "the committee are unable to recommend the passing of the Bill;" giving as reasons, that "no evidence in support of this Bill, or of these memorials and resolutions, has been laid before the committee;" that the "claim is not made by General Jackson, or by any one appearing to be authorized in his behalf," &c., &c. We felt shame for our Senate on reading this report. To require evidence that General Jackson was fined and paid the fine, is as absurd as to require evidence of the Declaration of Independence, the adoption of the Constitution, or any other event in the public history of our country. It belittles Congress, as carrying with it the idea of studied and quibbling evasion. Nor does the implied requirement, that the gallant old soldier should apply for this money in person, add to the dignity of this report. It looks like a desire that he shall humble himself, and become a beggar at the bar of Congress, for that justice which the memorialists and Legislatures of the two great States of Ohio and New York asked might be spontaneously awarded. It would have read better in our annals, if the committee, admitting the facts which are notorious to every intelligent man in the Republic, had taken the ground that the fine was rightfully imposed and justly exacted; that General Jackson deserved the punishment thus inflicted upon him; and that to refund it would be an unsafe precedent, encouraging to future military usurpers. There would have been dignity in this position, if sincerely assumed, though in our opinion unwarranted by the facts and principles involved in the

case.

When the Bill came up for discussion in the Senate, new grounds of

opposition, not suggested by the committee, were discovered. In advocating its passage, the Democratic Senators claimed it as a matter of justice to General Jackson, who had done no more than duty required of him; and some of them did not hesitate to charge that Judge Hall had been actuated by personal considerations and vindictive feelings. The Whig Senators thereupon, assumed the ground that they were called upon by this Bill to condemn Judge Hall and reverse his decision! In this aspect of the case, they were not willing to vote for it (though it was perfectly silent as to the motives and legality of the acts of both parties), without a proviso expressly excluding any conclusion unfavorable to the Judge. The Judge was assailed on the one hand and defended on the other, but the Bill was silent. Where was the necessity of making it speak? Was not the defence of the Whigs a sufficient setoff to the attacks of the Democrats? Could more force be given to the one or the other by any proviso inserted in the Bill? Why not let the reputation of Judge Hall, like that of General Jackson, rest upon its own merits and the defence of his friends?

Mr. Conrad, a new Senator from Louisiana, took the lead in making up this issue. After having stated, somewhat erroneously, the acts for which the fine was imposed, and the decision of Judge Hall therefore, he said:

"This is the sentence we are called

upon to reverse as unjust, erroneous and illegal. However willing he might be to return this money to General Jackson ex gratia-however anxious he might be to do anything consistent with truth and principle, to gratify General Jackson or his friends, on this floor or elsewhere, he could not do this. He could not do it, because he believed the judgment conformable to law and justice; he could not do it, because he would thereby sanction a dangerous precedent, that might hereafter be invoked by some military chieftain less magnanimous than. liberties of his country; he could not do General Jackson, to the subversion of the it, because he would thereby contribute to revive an exploded calumny against a portion of his constituents; he could not do it, because he would, in so doing, affix an unjust stigma upon the character of the upright magistrate by whom this sentence was pronounced."

Now, there was not a word in the Bill, as our readers have seen, involving any of these consequences. There was not a word to show that it was not gotten up and voted for “ex gratia" altogether. There was nothing to prevent Mr. Conrad and his associates from voting for it on that ground, leaving Mr. Linn, Mr. Benton, Mr. Buchanan, &c., &c., to vote for it on that or any other ground. Mr. Conrad's assertion, that the Judge was "an upright magistrate," might have been deemed sufficient to counterbalance any other Senator's opinion to the contrary, so long as neither appeared in the Bill. But silence as to the conduct of the Judge was deemed an impulation upon it! The fine could not be refunded to the General without a salvo for the Judge's character! These discreet friends of the absent and the dead practically admitted that his character could not, like that of other judges in like cases, be left to stand or fall by its own merits; but must be propped up by an express reservation. Had we been the advocate of the Judge and the guardian of his reputation, we should have repelled the proviso on the ground that he stood proudly vindicated by history itself without it. We would not have admitted by such a proposition, that a spot, or the shadow of a spot, rested on his untarnished ermine. It pleased the Whigs, however, to modify the Bill and annex a proviso, after which it read in the following form, viz.:

"That there be remitted and refunded to General Andrew Jackson, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the amount of a fine and costs imposed upon him by the District Court

of the United States for the District of Louisiana, for an alleged contempt of court, with interest, at the rate of six per centum per annum: Provided always, That this act shall not be construed as an expression of the opinion of Congress upon any judicial proceeding or legal question growing out of the declaration of martial law by General Jackson during the defence of New Orleans."

For two reasons it was now impossible for those who considered Judge Hall's conduct illegal, and the refund ing of this money an act of sheer just ice, to vote for the Bill. First, it forced them to say what their motive was

not, and in so doing, took from them the leading consideration which governed their votes. So far as they were concerned, they intended their votes for the Bill should be considered a condemnation of the Judge's proceedings. They did not wish the Bill to exclude or include any member's reasons for his vote, deeming it sufficient to let them rest in his own bosom, or be declared in open Senate, as he might deem right and proper. Secondly, they believed the Bill in that shape would be unacceptable, if not insulting, to General Jackson. They had too much self-respect, as well as respect for the noble old chieftain, to tender him an act of justice environed with buts and ifs, conditions, limitations, and provisos. The Bill was consequently rejected by the votes of its original friends.

Shame to our country! She still retains in her Treasury a thousand dollars exacted from a man who will be her pride and her boast in all time to come, for acts which nine-tenths of her people justify and applaud! The main object of this Article, however, is (with the aid of the private papers of the eminent individual to whom it refers) to refresh the memory of our conntrymen in relation to the incidents connected with the defence of New Orleans in 1814-15; to bring to the knowledge of the public a few additional facts, and correct the errors of pretended history. In accomplishing these objects we make four distinct points, viz.:

1. The enforcement of Martial Law in question was absolutely necessary. 2. The acts for which General Jackson was fined were the necessary results of that enforcement.

3. The enforcement of Martial Law was legal.

4. The imposition of the fine by Judge Hall was illegal.

1. NECESSITY OF MARTIAL LAW.The year 1814 witnessed the capture of Washington and the burning of our Capitol. While our country was thus disgraced at its centre, General Jackson was fighting his way through the Creek nation to the Gulf of Mexico. Scarcely had he compelled the Indians to sue for peace, when from afar came the note of British preparation for the invasion and conquest of the southwestern portion of the Union. Much

« AnteriorContinuar »