greatly unequal, the resulting power would be abused; that it was not in the nature of man to exercise it with moderation.  The very extravagance of the intended use is a conclusive evidence against the possibility of the grant of such a power as is here proposed.  Why, sir, I have already heard of six States, and some say there will be, at no great distance of time, more.  I have also heard that the mouth of the Ohio will be far to the east of the centre of the contemplated empire.  If the bill is passed, the principle is recognized.  All the rest are mere questions of expediency.  It is impossible such a power could be granted.  It was not for these men that our fathers fought.  It was not for them this Constitution was adopted.  You have no authority to throw the rights and liberties and property of this people into “hotch-pot” with the wild men on the Missouri, nor with the mixed, though more respectable, race of Anglo-Hispano-Gallo-Americans, who bask on the sands in the mouth of the Mississippi.  I make no objection to these from their want of moral qualities or political light.  The inhabitants of New Orleans are, I suppose, like those of all other countries, some good, some bad, some indifferent.* * *

I will add only a few words, in relation to the moral and political consequences of usurping this power.  I have said that it would be a virtual dissolution of the Union; and gentlemen express great sensibility at the expression.  But the true source of terror is not the declaration I have made, but the deed you propose.  Is there a moral principle of public law better settled, or more conformable to the plainest suggestions of reason, than that the violation of a contract by one of the parties may be considered as exempting the other from its obligations?  Suppose, in private life, thirteen form a partnership, and ten of them undertake to admit a new partner without the concurrence of the other three, would it not be at their option to abandon the partnership, after so palpable an infringement of their rights?  How much more, in the political partnership, where the admission of new associates, without previous authority, is so pregnant with obvious dangers and evils!  Again, it is settled as a principle of morality, among writers on public law, that no person can be obliged, beyond his intent at the time of contract.  Now who believes, who dare assert, that it was the intention of the people, when they adopted this Constitution, to assign, eventually, to New Orleans and Louisiana, a portion of their political power; and to invest all the people those extensive regions might hereafter contain, with an authority over themselves and their descendants?  When you throw the weight of Louisiana into the scale, you destroy the political equipoise contemplated at the time of forming the contract.  Can any man venture to affirm that the people did intend such a comprehension as you now, by construction, give it?  Or can it be concealed that, beyond