proclamation directing the occupation of property thus acquired by solemn treaty was an unauthorized measure of war and legislation. In this, his vindication of the course pursued by Mr. Madison was most triumphant. He proved by citing acts of congress passed in 1803–4, that the president was fully empowered to authorize the occupation of the territory. He maintained that these laws furnished ♦‘a legislative construction of the treaty correspondent with that given by the executive, and they vest in this branch of the government indisputably a power to take possession of the country whenever it might be proper in his discretion; so far, therefore, from having violated the constitution in the action he had taken and caused to be taken, he had hardly carried out its provisions, one of which expressly enjoined it upon him to see that the laws of the United States were faithfully and impartially executed, in every district of country over which she could rightfully exercise jurisdiction. After settling the questions of title and constitutional action of the president, he proceeded to notice some of the arguments of the opposition against taking forcible possession, which attempted to show that war would result. ‘We are told,’ said he, ‘of the vengeance of resuscitated Spain. If Spain, under any modification of her government, choose to make war upon us for the act under consideration, the nation, I have no doubt, will be willing to meet war. But the gentleman’ (Mr. Horsey) ‘reminds us that Great Britain, the ally of Spain, may be obliged by her connection with Spain to take part with her against us, and to consider this measure of the president as justifying an appeal to arms. Sir, is the time never to arrive when we may manage our own affairs without the fear of insulting his Britannic majesty? Is the rod of British power to be for ever suspended over our heads? Does congress put on an embargo to shelter our rightful commerce against the piratical depredations committed upon it on the ocean? we are immediately warned of the indignation of offended England. Is a law of non-intercourse proposed? the whole navy of the haughty mistress of the seas is made to thunder in our ears. Does the president refuse to continue a correspondence with a minister who violates the decorum belonging to his diplomatic character, by giving and deliberately repeating an affront to the whole nation? we are instantly menaced with the chastisement which English pride will not fail to inflict. Whether we assert our rights by sea or attempt their maintenance by land――whithersoever we turn ourselves, this phantom incessantly pursues us. Already has it had too much influence on the councils of the nation. It contributed to the repeal of the embargo――that dishonorable repeal which has so much tarnished the character of our government. Mr. president, I have before said on this floor, and now take occasion again to remark, that I most