CUTTING-BRECKINRIDGE AFFAIR

211

New York, known as "hard-shell" Democrats, had taken a position upon the bill in its earlier stages, under the leadership of Francis B. Cutting of that State, which was not satisfactory to the friends of the measure. This led to a heated debate between Mr. Cutting and John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky, in which strong language was used and pointed personalities were indulged in. Mr. Cutting had moved to refer the Senate bill to the Committee of the Whole, and Mr. Breckinridge accused him and his friends who supported his motion of attempting to kill the bill by burying it there. He charged him with having received the congratulations of every Abolitionist on the floor at the success of his motion; he further charged "that the act, in all its effects, was the act of one who would throw one arm around another, as if in a friendly embrace, and with the other stab him in the heart." Mr. Cutting replied in words that were equally bitter, and the debate culminated in Mr. Cutting's accusing Mr. Breckinridge of skulking behind the Senate bill. Mr. Breckinridge was promptly on his feet, and asked Mr. Cutting to withdraw that word. Mr. Cutting as emphatically refused, whereupon Mr. Breckinridge exclaimed: "If the gentleman says I skulk, he says what is false, and he knows it." There was at once great excitement upon the floor of the House. Both principals were men of the highest character and attainments, and among the most distinguished members of the House. Mr. Breck

inridge was afterwards Vice-President, and the nominee of the Democratic party for the Presidency. Mr. Cutting was one of the leading lawyers in the city of New York. Duelling, which had held such a conspicuous place in the political controversies of the earlier days of the Republic, had fallen into disuse, and the prospect of its revival by this incident added to the excitement, and to the intense feeling that already existed over the issues involved in the Nebraska Bill. This feeling was more intense, if anything, than that over the Compromise Measures of 1850. The excitement caused by this incident in the House soon spread over Washington and throughout the country. Mr. Cutting sent a challenge to Mr. Breckinridge, which was promptly accepted, and there were wild rumors for forty-eight hours of the occurrence of the most serious results. A long correspondence followed between the respective friends of the principals, while the public waited in suspense. There was a a difference about weapons. Mr. Breckinridge, claiming the right to choose, selected rifles at forty paces, which was not satisfactory to Mr. Cutting's friends, who preferred pistols at a shorter range. After a delay of four days the matter was amicably adjusted, to the satisfaction of all parties.

Another incident occurred during this session of Congress which led to some debate and an aggressive message on the part of the President, in which he called for decisive action. The continu

ance of Spanish rule in Cuba was a constant source of irritation to the people of the United States, and kept the relations of the country with Spain in a state of constant tension. The slightest incident of an unfriendly character upon the part of Spain was exaggerated by the people, in their sensitive frame of mind, into a demonstration of hostility which the people of the United States were called upon to resent, and were over-anxious to take advantage of. The acquisition of Cuba continued to be one of the most important questions that occupied the attention of the masses and the public men of the country, and they were not slow in seizing upon anything that would furnish a pretext or afford an opportunity for the accomplishment of the much-desired result. In March, 1854, the Spanish authorities at Havana seized the American steamship “Black Warrior," a passenger vessel plying between that port and the city of New York. The seizure was made, as was alleged, for violation of the revenue laws; and the steamer was afterwards restored to her owners upon the payment by them, under protest, of a fine of six thousand dollars. The affair was afterwards satisfactorily adjusted, but for the time being it served to arouse the Cuban feeling in all its intensity, and showed how sensitive that feeling was.

CHAPTER XIV.

Mr. Jones' speech in the House of Representatives upon the Mexican treaty.

T this session the House was asked by the
President to pass a bill to enable him to

A

carry into effect the Gadsden Treaty with Mexico, which had been ratified December 30, 1853. The bill appropriated $10,000,000. This important treaty, which had been negotiated for the purpose of more fully securing the results of the Mexican War, definitely settled the southern boundary line between the two countries; ceded to the United States twenty million acres of land in addition to Upper California and New Mexico, which had been ceded by the treaty of peace; secured the free navigation of the Gulf of California, the Rio Grande, and the Colorado River, and granted to the United States a right of way across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.

The bill was opposed by Thomas H. Benton of Missouri (who had been a United States Senator for thirty years, and was then a member of the House of Representatives) and others. Mr. Benton said the message of the President "did nothing in the world but demand the check of the House for ten millions of dollars, and that at brief notice, and without days of grace." He considered that

the President in negotiating this treaty had invaded the privilege of the House. He contended that the purse-strings of the nation, under the Constitution, were held by the House-the same power which had existed in the House of Commons since the time of the Saxon invasion of England. Where any legislation was necessary to carry a treaty into effect, the House could enact such legislation or not, as it saw fit. To that end the House had the authority, and it was its duty, to call for all the papers and go into the merits of the treaty itself, and, if it saw fit, to withhold the legislation, even if the effect was to make the treaty inoperative and of no effect.

Mr. Jones, in an able speech in reply to Mr. Benton, advocated the bill and defended the treaty-making power of the President and Senate. He contended that under the Constitution, when two-thirds of the Senators concurred, a treaty became the supreme law of the land. He pointed out the difference between the powers of the House of Commons under the unwritten constitution of England and the clearly defined powers and limitations fixed by the Constitution of the United States. The House had the right to call for all the correspondence and papers relating to the treaty, but the President had the power to withhold them if he thought the public interests required it. The House had the power, it was true, to defeat the treaty by refusing to enact the necessary legislation to carry it into effect, and the President had