Syracuse University Library
Special Collections Research Center
Gerrit Smith Broadside and Pamphlet Collection

Hon. O. Allen, Buffalo : Peterboro, April 23d, 1851.

Smith, Gerrit, 1797-1874.

Digital Edition.

This digitization project was supported by Regional Bibliographic Databases and Interlibrary Resources Sharing Program funds, awarded by the New York State Library.

Call number: Smith 467

PETERBORO, April 23d, 1851.

Hon. O. Allen, Buffalo,

DEAR SIR,

I have read, and been instructed by, the Report, which you banded me. I mean the Report; which you made, as Chairman of the Committee on Canals, respecting the enlargement of the Erie and the completion of the Genesee and Black River Canals. It is a Report of great value: and I wish its readers could be multiplied a hundred fold.

Mr. Spencer's Opinion, embodied in the Report, is very able. And, yet, I do not see, that you needed it. If the question were - whether the nine millions would be a debt - a technical debt - a debt in nomenclature - then to get Mr. Spencer, or some other learned lawyer, to shed light upon it, would be not only proper, but important. But this, notwithstanding it has been so much discussed, is not the question. - And this, notwithstanding the great amount of ingenuity, which has been expended upon it, should never have been allowed to take the place of the true question. That true question is - whether the State would be bound to pay the nine millions. If it would, then the Constitution is violated. But, if it would not, then, on the great point, however it might be on other and comparatively immaterial points, the Constitution is not violated.

Now, whether the nine millions should be called a debt, or be called by some other name, I do not know - for I am not a lawyer. But, that the State would not be bound to pay the nine millions, is a proposition too obviously true, to need Mr. Spencer's, or any other lawyer's, confirmation. Indeed, it is not extravagant to say, that it is a self-evident proposition: and that if there is difficulty in establishing it by a train of reasoning, it is but the difficulty there is in thus establishing every self-evident proposition.

But, although it is not needful to show by direct proof, that the State would not be bound to pay the nine millions, it may, nevertheless, be well to illustrate the absurdity of the pretension, that it would be. This can be done in ten thousand ways. I will instance one or two of them.

I have a parcel of land. It yields but fifty dollars, a year. But, if brought into the good state of cultivation, which I have not the means of bringing it into, the income from it would, probably be doubled. So confident of this is my moneyed neighbor, that he proposes to let me have five hundred dollars wherewith to improve the land - provided only, that he may repay himself, if he can, principal and interest, out of one half of its yearly products. Moreover, the paper, in which I am to acknowledge the receipt of the five hundred dollars, is, expressly, to confine him for repayment to the one half of the yearly products, and is, expressly, to deny him all recourse to myself for supplying the deficiency, if any there should be. Now, how unreasonable it would be to say, that I am bound to pay any part of the five hundred dollars!

Again - I have a heifer. She is too young to give much milk; and I am too poor to keep her until she has become a full grown cow. My money-making neighbor proposes to let me have five dollars a year for three successive years to help me pay for her keeping. And so productive a cow will she become in his confident opinion, that he consents to disclaim in the paper, which passes between us, my personal liability for any part of the principal or interest, and to look no where for repayment, but to one half of her daily milk. I ask, whether the claim, that I am bound to pay any thing in this case is not utterly absurd? And yet this case and the other supposed case do, for aught I see, illustrate the relation, in which the State would stand toward the capitalists, who should advance the nine millions of dollars. If I should not be bound to repay the five hundred dollars and the fifteen dollars, neither would the State be bound to repay the nine millions of dollars.

I was in Albany the last week of the Session; and was so much interested in your Canal Bill, as to go into the Senate Chamber to listen to the debates upon it. Great, very great, was, my surprise at hearing one of the Senators argue, that a successful suit could be brought against the State for the nine millions! Such is the power of the esprit du corps even over a highly educated and disciplined mind! This Senator was logical, as well as eloquent, in the Speeches, by which, in what I call his better years, he was wont to electrify Antislavery and Temperance Meetings. But, on the present occasion, he was only eloquent. It was not his fault - but the fault of his cause - that he was not logical also. I doubt not, that this Senator sincerely believes, that your Canal Bill conflicts with the Constitution. The like admission I could make in behalf of most, though certainly not all, of the Senators, who resigned with him. For only nineteen hours before the resignation took place; one of them told me, that he had no "Constitutional scruples" against the Bill; that he was well

[2]

aware, that the interests of his constituents called loudly on him to give his vote for it; and that nothing made him reluctant to give it, but the unpleasantness of going against his party. In the same interview he read to me a brief, though conclusive, argument in favor of the Constitutionality of the Bill - an argument, which, he told me, he had written for the purpose of reading it in his place in the Senate, ere giving his vote for the Bill.

I readily admit, that neither the framers; nor the adopters, of the Constitution contemplated any such extensive anticipation of the Canal revenues, as that proposed by your Bill. I readily admit; that it, probably, did not, at that time, enter into the mind of any person, that capitalists could be found, who would consent to part with their money on the only security, which your Bill provides for its repayment. And, perhaps, they could not have been found, at that time. But, at the present time, when money is more plenty than it was then, and when the Canals have had fire years more time, in which to prove, that they can be depended on for a sure and vast income, it is believed, that such capitalists can be found. More certainly could they be found five years hence, if, during all the intermediate time, the Canals should continue to give such proof of their productiveness. Who doubts, that, if, in the year the present Constitution was adopted, money enough to complete the Canals had been offered to the State on the terms of repayment in your Bill, the offer would have been accepted? Surely then, we ought not now to refuse to perform a great and much needed work, which has, now, become practicable, for the poor reason, that it was impracticable five years ago, or for the no less poor reason, that it was not then foreseen, that it over [strike "over"] would [so soon] be practicable.

There are several reasons, why I do most earnestly desire, that the Senators, who resigned, may all find themselves unsustained by the people, at the special Election, next month.

1st. Their resignation was a high-banded and revolutionary measure, which should never be resorted to, except in an extreme case: - never to save money - never but when to save life or liberty. If their resignation should not be rebuked by the people, it may prove to be a very pernicious precedent. The blocking of the wheels of Government in this wise may get to be the fashion of the factious: - and RESIGNATION may become the favorite expedient of the minority for controlling the majority. Let me add, that a Republic is such in name only, if minorities in it are disposed and able to defeat majorities. That the majority shall rule, and the minority submit to be ruled, is the great distinctive principle of a Republican Government.

It is in vain, that we look in this case for any palliation of the misconduct of these Senators. There is nothing in the case to give the least countenance to their sudden and revolutionary arrest of legislation; - nothing to excuse a measure so fraught with public damage and with private disappointment and distress. No corruption was imputed to the majority. There was no room for imputing any. The extent of the charge against them was their error in believing your Bill to be Constitutional. What, however, if their judgment was at fault on this point? That was not enough to constitute an occasion for REVOLUTION. An unintentional violation of the Constitution is, probably, repeated at every Session of the Legislature. But whether intentional or unintentional, the Courts are ever open to those, who would have a law rendered void by the judicial and authoritative declaration of its Unconstitutionality.

2d. If the resigned Senators, who reside in Rail-Road rather than in Canal Districts, should be re-elected, their re-election will be like to be construed into a war of the Rail-Roads upon the Canals. But these two mighty interests should be harmonious, instead of antagonistic: and the people of the whole State should uphold, and cherish, and rejoice in, both. Both are needed to enrich, exalt, and bless our State. No disposition should be manifested in any quarter to impose tolls on Rail-Roads. The Northern and the Southern Rail-Roads should never again be threatened with the imposition: and Rail-Roads, which are now subject to, tolls, should, at once, be relieved of them. Moreover, all interference of the Legislature with the rates of fare on Rail-Roads should be held to be bad faith, and a narrow-minded, impolitic and pernicious meddling with that with which the Legislature has legitimately nothing to do. And, as to the tolls on the Canals, they should, after the Canals are paid for, be reduced to a bare sufficiency to keep the Canals in repair. Our State is to be benefitted by creating and attracting commerce, rather than by taxing it.

3d. The re-election of the resigned Senators would, whether justly or unjustly, be turned into an argument, and a plausible argument too, for delaying, if not, indeed, for indefinitely postponing, the completion of the Eric Canal. Sad were it, should that argument prevail. But, as surely as the re-election would furnish the argument, so surely would it be effectively wielded.

Nature has provided no route for an artificial channel of trade between the Seaboard and the West at all comparable with the route of the Erie Canal. This channel, once completed, would encounter no rivalry from

[3]

any pathway of commerce, which the hand of man can create. Rail-Roads would, of course, command the travel. They would, also, get a share of the freight. But this share would be small, compared with that, which would seek the Eric Canal. It is true, that the Canals of Pennsylvania have the advantage of the Canals of New York, in respect to climate. But give to New York the completed Erie Canal, and she will overbalance this advantage by cheapness of transportation.

Has it ever occurred to you, that the State has no moral right to continue to own the Erie Canal, and yet delay to complete it? Nature has given to the people, and not to the Government, a matchless route for a canal; and Government has no more right to keep the people out of the improvement and enjoyment of the capabilities of this route, than a corporate company would have thus to stand in the way of the public good. Indeed, Government is careful, when it gives a charter to a company, not to allow them all the time they may please to take for finishing their rail-road or canal. To allow them such latitude would be to put it in their power to deprive the people, for an indefinite period, of the rail-road or canal; - and the rail-road or canal might be very important and much needed. I wish you to remember, that the natural facilities and advantages for this railroad or canal belong to the people; that they are entitled to have them improved; and that, even if now preoccupied by a loitering and inefficient Company, they will, nevertheless; soon be improved; since, by the restrictions of their Charter, the Company will soon be compelled to give place to others, who are eager to enter upon the promising work. Now, such restrictions, as are here referred to, I hold, that the State is morally bound to feel itself to be under, in the case of the Erie Canal. For thirty years, has the State confined the people to a very limited and imperfect use of the people's means for one of the most important thorough-fares in the world. Let it, then, without delay, either complete this work, which it has monopolized, or give way to others, who will complete it. There are men enough, who stand ready to buy the Erie Canal; and who would engage to complete it within two years; and who would feel it to be their own, as well as the people's, gain to complete it within that time, even, if to do so, they should have to borrow money, and pay double the usual rates of interest for it. But, the State will not consent to sell the Erie Canal. If, then, it would be just, what less can it do than to complete it, and to complete it as soon as practicable?

I close my letter with saying, that the District, in which I reside, was represented by one of the resigned Senators; and that, in respect to it, I cannot doubt the result of the approaching Election. This Election will make it manifest, that the great majority of the voters of this District are opposed to the undignified, uncalled for, and reprehensible course, to which these Senators resorted; and are opposed to all party-manoeuvres at the expense of the great and vital interests of the commonwealth; and are opposed to any needless delay in the completion of the Canals.

Respectfully yours,

GERRIT SMITH.