Operating Systems 3rd Edition Nutt Solutions Manual

Operating Systems 3rd Edition Nutt Solutions
Manual download
https://testbankdeal.com/product/operating-systems-3rd-edition-
nutt-solutions-manual/
Visit testbankdeal.com today to download the complete set of
test bank or solution manual

We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit testbankdeal.com
to discover even more!
Operating Systems 3rd Edition Nutt Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/operating-systems-3rd-edition-nutt-
test-bank/
Operating Systems 3rd Edition Deitel Solutions Manual
https://testbankdeal.com/product/operating-systems-3rd-edition-deitel-
solutions-manual/
Operating Systems Design And Implementation 3rd Edition
Tanenbaum Solutions Manual
https://testbankdeal.com/product/operating-systems-design-and-
implementation-3rd-edition-tanenbaum-solutions-manual/
MIS Essentials 3rd Edition Kroenke Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/mis-essentials-3rd-edition-kroenke-
test-bank/

Core Concepts of Accounting Information Systems 13th
Edition Simkin Solutions Manual
https://testbankdeal.com/product/core-concepts-of-accounting-
information-systems-13th-edition-simkin-solutions-manual/
Production and Operations Analysis 6th Edition Nahmias
Solutions Manual
https://testbankdeal.com/product/production-and-operations-
analysis-6th-edition-nahmias-solutions-manual/
Medical Terminology A Living Language 5th Edition Fremgen
Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/medical-terminology-a-living-
language-5th-edition-fremgen-test-bank/
Fundamentals of Case Management Practice Skills for the
Human Services 5th Edition Summers Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/fundamentals-of-case-management-
practice-skills-for-the-human-services-5th-edition-summers-test-bank/
Sociology Pop Culture to Social Structure 3rd Edition Brym
Solutions Manual
https://testbankdeal.com/product/sociology-pop-culture-to-social-
structure-3rd-edition-brym-solutions-manual/

Culture and Psychology 6th Edition Matsumoto Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/culture-and-psychology-6th-edition-
matsumoto-test-bank/

Gary Nutt, Operating Systems 3/e
Instructor’s Solutions
©2004 «GreetingLine»
Chapter 9: High-Level Synchronization and Interprocess
Communication
Exercises
1. Here is one solution. Another one uses the monitor to encapsulate the resources rather
than just the entry and exit.
monitor sharedV {
public enter(int i) {set i busy;};
public exit(int i) {set i idle;};
};
p_0() {
...
enter(2);
access V_2;
exit(2)
...
}
p_1() {
...
enter(0);
access V_0
exit(0)
...
enter(2);
access V_2;
exit(2)
...
enter(0);
enter(2);
access V_0
access V_2;
exit(0)
exit(2)
}
p_2() {
...
enter(0);
access V_0
exit(0)
...
enter(1);
access V_1;
exit(1)
...
enter(0);
enter(1);
access V_0
access V_1;
exit(0)

exit(1)
}
p_3() {
...
enter(1);
access V_1;
exit(1)
...
}
2. Here is one solution.
semaphore s0 = 1, s1 = 1, s2 = 1;
...
P_simultaneous(...);
V_simultaneous(...);
p_0() {
...
P_simultaneous(s0, s1);
access V_0 & V_1;
V_simultaneous(s0, s1);
...
}
p_1() {
...
access V_1 & V_2;
...
}
p_2() {
...
access V_0 & V_2;
...
}
monitor semaphore {
private:
int count = 1; /* set to the initial value of the semaphore
*/
condition hold;
public:
P() {count--; if(count <= 0) hold.wait;};
V() {count++; hold.signal:};
};

4. Condition variables are just signaling semaphores (such as the full/empty semaphores
in the bounded buffer problem). The solution to this problem requires that you know
how mutual exclusion is implemented in the monitor. Then the condition variable
wait code must enqueue the thread and release the mutual exclusion. Similarly, the
signal code obtains mutually exclusive access to the monitor and dequeues a thread.
You will need to provide some guidance as to the amount of detail you want as an
acceptable solution to this problem. Here is some pseudo code (that has only been
debugged “by eye”):
struct monitor_t {
private:
semaphore mutex = 1;
int cv = 0;
<ADT data structures>
...
public:
proc_i(...) {
P(mutex);
<processing for proc_i>
/* CV wait */
cv--;
while(cv < 0) {
enqueue(self, cv_list);
setState(self, blocked);
V(mutex);
yield(); /* Call the scheduler */
P(mutex);
}
/* CV signal */
cv++;
if(cv <= 0) {
pid = dequeue(cv_list);
setState(pid, ready);
V(mutex);
P(mutex);
}
V(mutex);
};
...
};
5. The idea is to translate the solution for #4 into System V semaphores:
struct monitor_t {
private:
union semun {
int val;
struct semid_ds *buf;
ushort * array;
} arg;
arg.val = 1; /* Initial value of semaphore */
int mutex;
struct sembuf opns[1];

int cv = 0; /* You could use an event here, but it will be
* tricky releasing the mutex
*/
...
public:
monitor_t() {
mutex = semget(MY_MONITOR, 1, 0666|IPC_CREATE);
if(mutex < 0)
{
fprintf(stderr, "Semaphore not availablen");
exit(0);
}
if(semctl(id, 0, SETVAL, arg) < 0)
{
fprintf( stderr, "Unable to set semaphore valuen");
}
/* Set up the sembuf structure. */
opns[0].sem_num = 0;
opns[0].sem_flg = 0;
};
proc_i(...) {
/* P(mutex) */
opns[0].sem_op = -1;
semop(id, opns, 1);
/* CV wait */
cv--;
while(cv < 0) {
/* V(mutex) */
opns[0].sem_op = 1;
semop(id, opns, 1);
/* P(mutex) */
semop(id, opns, 1);
}
/* CV signal */
cv++;
if(cv <= 0) {
/* V(mutex) */
opns[0].sem_op = 1;
semop(id, opns, 1);
/* P(mutex) */
semop(id, opns, 1);
}
/* V(mutex) */
opns[0].sem_op = 1;
semop(id, opns, 1);
};
...

};
6. Here is the basic idea of a solution:
struct monitor_t {
private:
HANDLE mutex;
Char *mName = “mutexName”;
int cv = 0;
...
public:
monitor_t() {
mutex = CreateMutex(NULL, FALSE, mName);
};
proc_i(...) {
WaitForSingleObject(mutex, INFINITE); /* P(mutex */
/* CV wait */
cv--;
while(cv < 0) {
ReleaseMutex(mutex); /* V(mutex) */
WaitForSingleObject(mutex, INFINITE); /* P(mutex) */
}
/* CV signal */
cv++;
if(cv <= 0) {
WaitForSingleObject(mutex, INFINITE); /* P(mutex) */
}
};
...
};
monitor sleepy_barber {
private:
int number_of_customers = 0;
condition_variable haircut, sleepy;
public:
request_haircut {
number_of_customers = number_of_customers + 1;
if (number_of_customers == 1) sleepy.signal;
haircut.wait;
}

take_customer {
if (number_of_customers == 0) sleepy.wait;
number_of_customers = number_of_customers - 1;
haircut.signal;
}
}
The barber is a cyclic process of the form:
while (TRUE) {
sleepy_barber.take_customer;
cut_hair
}
Each customer has the form:
...
sleepy_barber.request_haircut
get_haircut;
...
8. An asynchronous send operation can be used in any situation in which the sending
process wishes to transmit information to a sender, but it does not care when the
message is received. In the SOR example, the central process can assign work to an
equation solver using an asynchronous send. (The centralized process will ultimately
have to synchronize the completion of the equation solutions by all the solvers, but
the allocation of work need not have synchronization.)
Suppose two processes, p_0 and p_1, cooperate with one another so that they
generally operate independently and concurrently, but they occasionally share
information by p_0 sending information to p_1; with a synchronous send, p_0 can
procede after its send operation with the assurance that p_1 has received the
information. This communication paradigm is used in remote procedure call
(described in detail in Chapter 17).
9. If a set of processes are working on a common problem, i.e., the work has been
partitioned and delegated to various processes, then the run time will be reduced if all
the processes can execute at the same time. This follows because a fixed amount of
work is divided, then two or more processes perform parts of the work simultaneously
(in a system with multiple processors). Blocking receive operations tend to make a
process wait for one or more other processes to "catch up," reducing the effective
amount of concurrency in the execution. However, as we have seen in various
examples in Chapters 8 and 9, concurrent operation on shared information means that
it is necessary to incorporate a synchronization mechanism to manage sharing -- a
factor that considerably raises the complexity of the software.
10. Condition variables are used to suspend a process while it is logically in a critical
section. In a user thread package, the programmer controls the scheduling of threads
within an address space (process). Therefore, the programmer can determine
situations in which a thread is in a critical section, yet needs another critical section,
and thus can suspend the thread from executing until the needed critical section can

become available. Notice that this is not generally possible at the process level, since
there is not parent to control the schedule and to suspend other processes.
11. The Mach C thread cthread_fork() is similar to UNIX fork() in that it creates a
new thread. It is different in that the thread is given a specific procedure where it will
begin execution (same address space, but a different location from the parent thread).
When the C thread terminates, there is no synchronization with the parent thread.
12. This solution (with minor edits) provided by Don Lindsay, Fall, 1995.
===========================================================================
===========================================================================
/* parent.c
*
* Example program by Don Lindsay
*
*
* This program uses the trapezoidal rule to integrate
* f(x) = 1/(x+1)
* on [0,2]. It does this by forking N processes, each of which
* does n/N trapezoids.
* The parent specifies tasks over N pipes, and recieves answers over one
* shared pipe.
* The parent reports the totalled area, and reports the elapsed integration
* time, ie excluding the setup time. The time is the average of many runs.
* This program must be run with N between 1 and 8, and n=64.
*
* Tested on Linux: portability unknown.
*
*/
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <sys/time.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
#include <unistd.h>>
#include <errno.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#include <math.h>
#define REPEAT (4000)
#define NUMSTEPS (64)
#define PATHNAME "./child"
#define PRINT if(debug)fprintf
#define PRINT2 if(debug>1)fprintf
extern char **environ;
#ifndef FALSE
#define FALSE 0
#define TRUE 1
#endif
typedef int Boolean;
/*typedef unsigned char u_char;*/
#define PIPE_IN (0)
#define PIPE_OUT (1)
int debug = 0;

int forkcount;
int pipes_to_child[8][2];
int pipe_from_child[2];
/****************************************************************
*
*/
void fatal( char *string )
{
fprintf( stderr, "FATAL ERROR: %sn", string );
exit(1);
}
/****************************************************************
*
*/
void system_fatal( char *string )
{
fprintf( stderr, "FATAL SYSTEM ERROR: ");
perror( string );
exit(1);
}
/****************************************************************
*
*/
void prompt()
{
fprintf( stderr, "TRY: parent N [-d]n" );
exit(1);
}
/****************************************************************
*
* Sets globals forkcount, debug
*/
void parse_my_args( int argc, char **argv )
{
if( argc < 2 || argc > 3 ) prompt();
if( argc == 3 ){
if( strcmp( argv[2], "-d" ) == 0 )
debug = 1;
else if( strcmp( argv[2], "-D" ) == 0 )
debug = 2;
else
prompt();
}
forkcount = atoi( argv[1] );
PRINT( stderr, "forkcount %dn", forkcount );
if( forkcount < 1 || forkcount > 8 ) fatal( "arg out of range" );
}
/****************************************************************
*
* Fork that many children.
* Leaves global pipes_to_child and pipe_from_child. These are the
* stdin and stdout of each child.
* Exits on error.
*/
void fork_solvers( int forkcount )
{
int i;
pid_t pid;
char *child_argv[2];
child_argv[0] = PATHNAME;
child_argv[1] = NULL;

if( pipe( pipe_from_child )) system_fatal( "Pipe" );
for( i = 0; i < forkcount; i++ ) {
if( pipe( pipes_to_child[i] )) system_fatal( "Pipe" );
PRINT( stderr, "about to forkn" );
pid = fork();
if( pid == 0 ) {
/* I am the i'th child. */
if( close(0))
system_fatal("Close1");
if( dup( pipes_to_child[i][PIPE_IN ])==-1)system_fatal("dup1");
if( close(1))
system_fatal("Close2");
if( dup(pipe_from_child[ PIPE_OUT ])==-1)system_fatal("dup2");
/* child's stdin and stdout are now the pipes */
execve( PATHNAME, child_argv, environ );
fprintf( stderr, "exec of "%s" failed:n", PATHNAME );
system_fatal( "Child" );
exit(1);
}
/* I am the parent */
if( pid == -1 ) {
system_fatal( "Fork Parent" );
}
}
}
/***************************************************************
*
* Expects globals pipes_to_child, pipe_from_child.
* Writes step requests to those pipes, and returns the sum of the results.
*/
float farm_out_work( int forkcount )
{
u_char out_buf;
float in_buf;
int in_buf_len = sizeof( float );
float area;
int i, child;
/* Try to get them all working by writing all before any reads */
for( child = 0, i = 1; i <= NUMSTEPS; child++, i++ ) {
if( child >= forkcount ) child = 0; /* wrap around */
out_buf = i;
if( write( pipes_to_child[child][PIPE_OUT], &out_buf,1)!=1)
system_fatal( "write" );
}
for( area = 0.0, i = 1; i <= NUMSTEPS; i++ ) {
if( read( pipe_from_child[PIPE_IN], &in_buf,in_buf_len)
!= in_buf_len )
system_fatal( "read pipe" );
PRINT( stderr, "parent: %d gets area = %gn", i, in_buf );
area += in_buf;
}
PRINT( stderr, "parent: %d gets area = %gn", i, in_buf );
return area;
}
/****************************************************************
*

*
*/
void kill_solvers( int forkcount )
{
int i;
char out_buf;
out_buf = 0;
for( i = 0; i < forkcount; i++ ) {
if( write( pipes_to_child[i][PIPE_OUT], &out_buf,1)!=1)
system_fatal( "kill write" );
}
}
/******************************************************************
*
* Returns system time in milliseconds.
*/
double get_sys_time()
{
struct timeval t; /* int fields tv_sec, tv_usec */
double time;
int result = gettimeofday( &t, 0 );
if( result ) {
fprintf( stderr, "error from gettimeofdayn" );
perror( "" );
exit(1);
}
PRINT( stderr, "%d %dn", t.tv_sec, t.tv_usec );
time = t.tv_sec * 1.e6 + t.tv_usec; /* in microseconds */
return time / 1000;
}
/****************************************************************
*/
main( int argc, char **argv )
{
double start, stop;
int i;
float area;
parse_my_args( argc, argv ); /* get forkcount */
fork_solvers( forkcount );
start = get_sys_time();
/* Must integrate many times to get a measurable amount of time. */
for( i = 0; i < REPEAT; i++ ) {
area = farm_out_work( forkcount );
}
stop = get_sys_time();
fprintf( stdout, "area is %gn", area );
fprintf( stdout, "time per integration is %g ms.n",
(stop-start)/REPEAT );
kill_solvers( forkcount );
exit(0);
}
===========================================================================
===========================================================================
/* child.c - to be invoked by "parent", forked integrator.
*
* Example program by Don Lindsay
*
*
* This program is used to integrate (via trapezoids) the function

*/
#define FUNC(x) (1/(x+1.0))
#define NUMSTEPS (64)
#define INTERVAL_LO (0.0)
#define INTERVAL_HI (2.0)
/* Reads 1-byte integers, one at a time, from stdin.
* A value in the range 1..NUMSTEPS causes a single trapezoid
* to be computed, and its area written (as a binary float) to stdout.
* Zero means quit: all else is a fatal error.
* Each trapezoid represents a 1/NUMSTEPS part of the INTERVAL.
*
* Tested on Linux: portability unknown.
*
*/
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#define PRINT if(debug)fprintf
#define PRINT2 if(debug > 1)fprintf
extern char **environ;
typedef int Boolean;
/*typedef unsigned char u_char;*/
int debug = 0;
int forkcount;
/****************************************************************
*
*/
void fatal( char *string )
{
fprintf( stderr, "FATAL ERROR: %sn", string );
exit(1);
}
/****************************************************************
*
*/
void parse_args( int argc, char **argv )
{
if( argc != 1 ) {
fprintf( stderr, "Illegal arglist to child: %dn", argc );
exit(1);
}
}
/****************************************************************
*
*/
void system_fatal( char *string )
{
fprintf( stderr, "CHILD FATAL SYSTEM ERROR: ");
perror( string );
exit(1);
}

/****************************************************************
*
* Returns the area under f(x1)..f(x2) assuming f is linear between.
* Assumes x2 > x1.
* Expects macro FUNC.
*/
float trapezoid( float x1, float x2 )
{
float f1 = FUNC(x1);
float f2 = FUNC(x2);
return (x2-x1) * (f1+f2)/2.;
}
/****************************************************************
*
* Returns area of indexed trapezoid.
*/
float integrate( int index )
{
float x1, x2, deltax;
deltax = (INTERVAL_HI - INTERVAL_LO)/ NUMSTEPS;
x1 = INTERVAL_LO + index * deltax;
x2 = x1 + deltax;
return trapezoid( x1, x2 );
}
/****************************************************************
*/
main( int argc, char **argv )
{
int area_len = sizeof(float);
float area;
u_char buf;
parse_args( argc, argv );
for(;;) {
if( read( 0, &buf, 1 ) != 1 ) system_fatal( "read" );
PRINT( stderr, "child reads %d from pipe.n", buf );
if( buf == 0 ) exit(0);
if( buf > NUMSTEPS ) {
fprintf( stderr, "child: illegal %d read.n", buf );
exit(1);
}
area = integrate( buf-1 );
PRINT( stderr, "Child: area %d is %gn", buf, area );
if( write( 1, &area, area_len ) != area_len ) system_fatal( "write" );
}
}
13. Here is the quadrature problem using Mach C threads (with politically incorrect name
for the trapezoid solver code).
===========================================================================
===========================================================================
/* Trapezoidal Rule Quadrature using Mach C threads
*
* Use the following command to compile this file
* (assumed to be named trapezoid.c)
*
* trapezoid: trapezoid.o timer.o
* cc -g -o trapezoid trapezoid.o timer.o
*
* trapezoid.o: trapezoid.c

Discovering Diverse Content Through
Random Scribd Documents

counteracting them. Success has, I think, hitherto attended our
efforts. I do not fear the vote of the State, although it is believed
every member of the State administration, except General Bernard,
is hostile to your election. Your security will be in the gratitude and
in the hearts of the people.
Please to present my best respects to Mrs. Jackson, and believe
me to be, very respectfully, your friend,
James Buchanan.
This subject of Mr. Buchanan’s connection with the
Presidential election of 1824–5, and its incidents,
passed out of the public mind, after the publication
of the letters which I have quoted. But it was again
revived when Mr. Buchanan became a candidate for
the Presidency in 1856. All that it is needful to say
here is, that for nearly three years after the election
of 1824–5, no impression seems to have existed in
the mind of General Jackson that Mr. Buchanan’s
interview with him in December, 1824, had any
purpose but that which Mr. Buchanan has described;
but that in 1827, General Jackson, in the heat of the
renewed controversies about the supposed bargain
between Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay, took up the
erroneous idea that Mr. Buchanan could, if he were
to declare the truth, make it apparent that Mr. Clay
or his friends had attempted to effect the same kind
of bargain with General Jackson, which attempt was
indignantly repelled. A candid examination of the
facts is all that is needful to convince any one that

the General was in error in 1827, and that he was
equally in error at a much later period. When he
became President, and for a long time thereafter, his
confidence in Mr. Buchanan was manifested in so
many ways that one is led to believe that his view in
1827 of Mr. Buchanan’s conduct in the matter of the
Presidential election of 1824–5 was an exceptional
idiosyncrasy, resulting from the excitement which his
mind always felt in regard to that event, and which
was strongly renewed in him in 1827.
It will be necessary to advert to this subject again,
because, when Mr. Buchanan was a candidate for the
Presidency in 1856, the whole story was revived by
persons who were unfriendly to him, and who then
made use of a private letter which was extracted
from General Jackson in 1845, in a somewhat artful
manner, when he was laboring under a mortal illness.
But an account of this political intrigue belongs to the
period when it was set on foot.

CHAPTER IV.
1825–1826.
BITTER OPPOSITION TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JOHN QUINCY
ADAMS—BILL FOR THE RELIEF OF THE REVOLUTIONARY
OFFICERS—THE PANAMA MISSION—INCIDENTAL REFERENCE
TO SLAVERY.
The circumstances attending the election of Mr.
Adams led to the formation of a most powerful
opposition to his administration, as soon as he was
inaugurated. The friends of General Jackson, a
numerous and compact body of public men,
representing a much larger number of the people of
the Union than the friends of Mr. Adams could be
said to represent, felt that he had been unfairly
deprived of the votes of States in the House of
Representatives which should have been given to
him. Especially was this the case, they said, in regard
to the State of Kentucky, whose Legislature had
plainly indicated the wish of a majority of her people
that her vote in the House should be given to
General Jackson; and when it was announced that

Mr. Adams, who had received the unanimous
electoral vote of only six States, had obtained the
votes of thirteen States in the House, while General
Jackson had obtained but seven, and when Mr. Clay
had been appointed by Mr. Adams Secretary of State,
there was a bitterness of feeling among the
supporters of General Jackson, which evinced at
once a fixed determination to elect him President at
the end of the ensuing four years.
In regard to the state of parties, viewed apart from
the merely personal element of leadership and
following, there was not much, in the beginning of
Mr. Adams’s administration, to distinguish its
supporters from its opponents. In the course,
however, of that administration, those who defended
it from the fierce assaults of the opposition, began to
take the name of National Republicans, while the
opponents of the administration began to call
themselves Democrats. Included in the opposition
were the political friends and followers of Mr.
Calhoun, and the political friends and followers of
General Jackson; the latter being distinctly known
and classified as “Jackson men.” In the Senate there
was a number of older men, who were not likely to
form an active element of parliamentary opposition
or defence; such as Mr. Silsbee of Massachusetts, Mr.
Dickerson of New Jersey, Mr. Samuel Smith of

Maryland, Mr. William Smith of South Carolina, Mr.
Macon of Georgia, Mr. Rowan of Kentucky, and Mr.
Hugh L. White of Tennessee. The opposition in the
Senate was led by a younger class of men: Mr. Van
Buren of New York, Mr. Woodbury of New
Hampshire, Mr. Tazewell of Virginia, Mr. Hayne of
South Carolina, Mr. Berrien of Georgia, and Mr.
Benton of Missouri.
[17]
But it was not in the Senate
that the great arena of debate between the
assailants and the defenders of this administration
was to be found during the first year or two of its
term. In the House, at the opening of the 19th
Congress, which began its session in December,
1825, there was an array of combatants—ardent,
active and able debaters. Of these, composing the
leaders of the opposition, were Mr. Buchanan,
Samuel D. Ingham, William C. Rives, James K. Polk,
John Forsyth, George McDuffie, Edward Livingston,
William Drayton, William S. Archer, Andrew
Stevenson, Mangum, Cambreleng, and Louis McLane.
The eccentric John Randolph was also one of the
leaders of the opposition. The leading friends of the
administration were Webster, Sprague, Bartlett, John
Davis, Edward Everett, Burgess, Taylor, Letcher,
Wright, Vinton, and Henry L. Storrs.
Before the opposition had marshalled their forces
for an attack upon the administration, a debate

occurred in the House of Representatives upon a
subject that did not involve party divisions. A bill was
introduced by a Pennsylvania member for the relief
of the surviving officers of the Revolution. It
proposed an appropriation of only one million of
dollars, and it was confined strictly to the cases of
the Revolutionary officers to whom half-pay for life
had been granted by Congress in 1780, who had
afterwards accepted a commutation of five years’ full
pay, in lieu of half-pay for life, and who were paid in
certificates that were never worth more than one-
fifth of their nominal value, and which were soon
depreciated to about one-eighth. The passage of this
measure depended upon the prudence and skill of
those who favored it. The mover, Mr. Hemphill of
Pennsylvania, and Mr. Dayton, had advocated the bill
in speeches of much discretion, and there was a
good prospect of its adoption. In this state of things,
an untoward amendment was offered by a member
from Massachusetts, which proposed to increase the
appropriation. This had a manifest tendency to
defeat the bill; and at this crisis Mr. Buchanan came
forward to restate the case of the officers, and to
replace the measure on its true footing. He said:
“It is with extreme reluctance I rise at this time to address you. I
have made no preparation to speak, except that of carefully reading
the documents which have been laid upon our tables; but a crisis
seems to have arrived in this debate, when the friends of the bill, if

ever, must come forward in its support. I do not consider that the
claim of the officers of the Revolution rests upon gratitude alone. It
is not an appeal to your generosity only, but to your justice. You owe
them a debt, in the strictest sense of the word; and of a nature so
meritorious, that, if you shall refuse to pay it, the nation will be
disgraced. Formerly, when their claim was presented to Congress,
we had, at least, an apology for rejecting it. The country was not
then in a condition to discharge this debt without inconvenience. But
now, after forty years have elapsed since its creation, with a treasury
overflowing, and a national debt so diminished, that, with ordinary
economy, it must, in a very few years, be discharged, these officers,
the relics of that band which achieved your independence, again
present themselves before you, and again ask you for justice. They
do not ask you to be generous—they do not ask you to be grateful—
but they ask you to pay the debt which was the price of your
independence. I term it a debt; and it is one founded upon a most
solemn contract, with which these officers have complied, both in its
letter and in its spirit, whilst you have violated all its obligations.
“Let us spend a few moments in tracing the history of this claim. It
arose out of the distresses of the Continental Army, during the
Revolutionary War; and the utter inability of the government, at that
time, to relieve them. What, sir, was the situation of that army, when
it lay encamped at the Valley Forge? They were naked, and hungry,
and barefoot. Pestilence and famine stalked abroad throughout the
camp. The first blaze of patriotism which had animated the country,
and furnished the army with its officers, had begun to die away.
These officers perceived that the contest would be long, and bloody,
and doubtful. They had felt, by sad experience, that the depreciated
pay which they received, so far from enabling them to impart
assistance to their wives and children, or hoard up anything for
futurity, was not sufficient to supply their own absolute and
immediate wants. Placed in this situation, they were daily sending in
their resignations, and abandoning the cause of their country. In this
alarming crisis, Washington earnestly recommended to Congress to
grant the officers half-pay, to commence after the close of the
contest, as the only remedy for these evils, within their power. The

country was not then able to remunerate the officers for the
immense and unequal sacrifices which they were making in its
cause. All that it could then do was to present them a prospect of
happier days to come, on which hope might rest. With this view,
Congress, in May, 1778, adopted a resolution allowing the officers
who should continue in service until the end of the war, half-pay for
seven years. This resolution produced but a partial effect upon the
army. The time of its continuance was to be but short; and there
were conditions annexed to it, which, in many cases, would have
rendered it entirely inoperative.
“In August, 1779, Congress again acted upon this subject, and
resolved, ‘That it be recommended to the several States to grant
half-pay for life to the officers who should continue in the service to
the end of the war.’ This recommendation was disregarded by every
State in the Union, with one exception; and I feel proud that
Pennsylvania was that State. She not only granted half-pay for life to
the officers of her own line, but she furnished them with clothing
and with provisions. Thus, when the General Government became
unable to discharge its duty to her officers and soldiers, she
voluntarily interposed and relieved their distresses. General
Washington, when urging upon Congress the necessity of granting to
the officers half-pay for life, pointed to those of the Pennsylvania line
as an example of the beneficial consequences which had resulted
from that measure.[18]
“Congress at length became convinced of the necessity of granting
to the Continental officers half-pay for life. Without pay and without
clothing, they had become disheartened and were about abandoning
the service. The darkest period of the Revolution had arrived, and
there was but one ray of hope left to penetrate the impending gloom
which hung over the army. The officers were willing still to endure
privations and sufferings, if they could obtain an assurance that they
would be remembered by their country, after it should be blessed
with peace and independence. They well knew Congress could not
relieve their present wants; all, therefore, they asked was the
promise of a future provision. Congress, at length, in October, 1780,
resolved, ‘That half-pay for life be granted to the officers in the army

of the United States who shall continue in service to the end of the
war.’
“Before the adoption of this resolution, so desperate had been our
condition, that even Washington apprehended a dissolution of the
army, and had begun to despair of the success of our cause. We
have his authority for declaring that, immediately after its adoption,
our prospects brightened and it produced the most happy effects.
The state of the army was instantly changed. The officers became
satisfied with their condition, and, under their command, the army
marched to victory and independence. They faithfully and
patriotically performed every obligation imposed upon them by the
solemn contract into which they had entered with their country.
“How did you perform this contract on your part? No sooner had
the dangers of war ceased to threaten our existence—no sooner had
peace returned to bless our shores, than we forgot those
benefactors to whom, under Providence, we owed our
independence. We then began to discover that it was contrary to the
genius of our Republican institutions to grant pensions for life. The
jealousy of the people was roused, and their fears excited. They
dreaded the creation of a privileged order. I do not mean to censure
them for this feeling of ill-directed jealousy, because jealousy is the
natural guardian of liberty.
“In this emergency, how did the Continental officers act? In such a
manner as no other officers of a victorious army had ever acted
before. For the purpose of allaying the apprehensions of their fellow-
citizens, and complying with the wishes of Congress, they consented
to accept five years’ full-pay in commutation for their half-pay for
life. This commutation was to be paid in money, or securities were to
be given on interest at six per cent., as Congress should find most
convenient.
“Did the government ever perform this their second stipulation to
the officers? I answer, no. The gentleman from Tennessee was
entirely mistaken in the history of the times, when he asserted that
the commutation certificates of the officers enabled them to
purchase farms, or commence trade, upon leaving the army.
Congress had not any funds to pledge for their redemption. They

made requisitions upon the States, which shared the same fate with
many others, and were entirely disregarded. The faith and the honor
of the country, whilst they were intrusted to thirteen independent
and jealous State sovereignties, were almost always forfeited. We
then had a General Government which had not the power of
enforcing its own edicts. The consequence was that, when the
officers received their certificates, they were not worth more than
about one-fifth of their nominal value, and they very soon fell to
one-eighth of that amount.
“Let gentlemen for a moment realize what must then have been
the situation and the feelings of these officers. They had spent their
best days in the service of their country. They had endured
hardships and privations without an example in history. Destitute of
everything but patriotism, they had lived for years upon the mere
promise of Congress. At the call of their country, they had
relinquished half-pay for life, and accepted a new promise of five
years’ full-pay. When they had confidently expected to receive this
recompense, it vanished from their grasp. Instead of money, or
securities equal to money, which would have enabled them to
embark with advantage in civil employments, they obtained
certificates which necessity compelled most of them to sell at the
rate of eight for one. The government proved faithless, but they had,
what we have not, the plea of necessity, to justify their conduct.
“In 1790, the provision which was made by law for the payment of
the public debt, embraced these commutation certificates. They
were funded, and the owner of each of them received three
certificates; the first for two-thirds of the original amount, bearing
an interest immediately of six per cent.; the second for the
remaining third, but without interest for ten years; and the third for
the interest which had accumulated, bearing an interest of only
three per cent.
“What does this bill propose? Not to indemnify the officers of the
Revolution for the loss which they sustained in consequence of the
inability of the government, at the close of the war, to comply with
its solemn contract. Not, after a lapse of more than forty years, to
place them in the situation in which they would have been placed

had the government been able to do them justice. It proposes to
allow them even less than the difference between what the owners
of the commutation certificates received under the funding system,
and what these certificates when funded were worth upon their face.
My colleague has clearly shown, by a fair calculation, that the
allowance will fall considerably short of this difference. If the
question now before the committee were to be decided by the
people of the United States instead of their Representatives, could
any man, for a moment, doubt what would be their determination?
“I hope my friend from Massachusetts will not urge the
amendment he has proposed. Judging from past experience, I fear,
if it should prevail, the bill will be defeated. Let other classes of
persons who think themselves entitled to the bounty of their country
present their claims to this House, and they will be fairly
investigated. This is what the surviving officers of the Revolution
have done. Their case has been thoroughly examined by a
committee, who have reported in its favor; and all the information
necessary to enable us to decide correctly is now in our possession.
I trust their claim will be permitted to rest upon its own foundation.
They are old, and for the most part in poverty; it is necessary, if we
act at all, that we act speedily, and do them justice without delay. In
my opinion, they have a better claim to what this bill contemplates
giving them, than any of us have to our eight dollars per day.
Gentlemen need apprehend no danger from the precedent; we shall
never have another Revolutionary war for independence. We have
no reason to apprehend we shall ever again be unable to pay our
just debts. Even if that should again be our unfortunate condition,
we shall never have another army so patient and so devoted as to
sacrifice every selfish consideration for the glory, the happiness, and
the independence of their country. I shall vote against the proposed
amendment because I will do no act which may have a tendency to
defeat this bill.”
Mr. Buchanan used to relate, in after years, that at
this juncture, the friends of the bill were dismayed by

the course of Mr. Everett, who was then a young
member from Massachusetts, and who wished to
make and insisted upon making a rhetorical speech.
The friends of the bill remonstrated with him, that all
had been said that needed to be said; and that the
only thing to be done was to vote down the
amendment, after which the bill was almost certain
to be passed. But Mr. Everett persisted, and made his
speech while the amendment was pending.
[19]
He
“demanded” of the House to pass the bill, and by
passing it as proposed to be amended by his
colleague to give the survivors of the Revolution “all
they ask and more than they ask.” The consequence
was that the appropriation was increased. Then a
member from New York moved to extend its
provisions to every militia-man who had served for a
certain time. Then other amendments embraced
widows and orphans, artificers and musicians, the
troops who fought at Bunker Hill, the troops raised in
Vermont, those of the battles of Saratoga and
Bennington, and of the Southern battles. The
enemies of the original measure promoted this
method of dealing with it, and finally, when thus
loaded down with provisions not at all germane to its
real principle, it was recommitted to the Committee
and was therefore lost.

The first important subject of contention on which
the opposition put forth their strength against the
administration of Mr. Adams related to what was
called “The Panama Mission.” In his Message of
December, 1825, the President made the following
announcement:
“Among the measures which have been suggested to the Spanish-
American Republics by the new relations with one another resulting
from the recent changes of their condition, is that of assembling at
the Isthmus of Panama, a Congress at which each of them should be
represented, to deliberate upon objects important to the welfare of
all. The republics of Colombia, of Mexico, and of Central America,
have already deputed plenipotentiaries to such a meeting, and they
have invited the United States to be also represented there by their
ministers. The invitation has been accepted, and ministers on the
part of the United States will be commissioned to attend at those
deliberations, and to take part in them, so far as may be compatible
with that neutrality from which it is neither our intention nor the
desire of the other American States that we should depart.”
It was, beyond controversy, the constitutional
prerogative of the President, as the organ of all
intercourse with foreign nations, to accept this
invitation, and to name Ministers to the proposed
Congress. The Senate might or might not concur
with him in this step, and might or might not confirm
the nominations of the proposed Ministers. He sent
to the Senate the names of John Sergeant of
Philadelphia, and Richard C. Anderson of Kentucky,
as the Ministers of the United States to the proposed

Congress at Panama. The Senatorial opposition, led
by Mr. Benton and Mr. Tazewell, after a long
discussion in secret session, took a vote upon a
resolution that it was inexpedient to send Ministers
to Panama. This was rejected by a vote of 24 to 19;
and the nominations were then confirmed by a vote
of 27 to 17 in the case of Mr. Anderson, and by a
vote of 26 to 18 in the case of Mr. Sergeant. The
diplomatic department having thus fully acted upon
and confirmed the proposed measure, it remained
for the House of Representatives to initiate and pass
the necessary appropriation. The turn that was given
to the subject in the House gave rise to an animated
debate on a very important constitutional topic, in
which Mr. Buchanan, although opposed to the
Mission, asserted it to be the duty of the House to
make the appropriation, now that the Senate had
confirmed the appointment of the Ministers. This
debate began upon a resolution reported by the
Committee on Foreign Affairs, that “in the opinion of
the House it is expedient to appropriate the funds
necessary to enable the President of the United
States to send Ministers to the Congress of Panama.”
To this resolution, Mr. McLane of Delaware had
moved an amendment, which, if it had been
adopted, would have placed the House of
Representatives in the anomalous attitude of

annexing, as a condition of its grant, instructions as
to the mode in which the diplomatic agents of the
United States were to act in carrying out a foreign
mission. Mr. Buchanan, who was in favor of the
amendments, was also in favor of making the
appropriation necessary to enable the President to
send the Mission; and in support of this
constitutional duty of the House, he made an
argument on the 11th of April (1826) which drew
from Mr. Webster the compliment that he had placed
this part of the subject in a point of view which could
not be improved.
[20]
Mr. Buchanan said:
“I know there are several gentlemen on this floor, who approve of
the policy of the amendments proposed, and wish to express an
opinion in their favor; and who yet feel reluctant to vote for them,
because it is their intention finally to support the appropriation bill.
They think, if the amendments should be rejected, consistency
would require them to refuse any grant of money to carry this
mission into effect. I shall, therefore, ask the attention of the
committee, whilst I endeavor to prove that there would not, in any
event, be the slightest inconsistency in this course.
“I assert it to be a position susceptible of the clearest proof, that
the House of Representatives is morally bound, unless in extreme
cases, to vote the salaries of Ministers who have been
constitutionally created by the President and Senate. The expediency
of establishing the mission was one question, which has already
been decided by the competent authority; when the appropriation
bill shall come before us, we will be called upon to decide another
and a very different question. Richard C. Anderson and John
Sergeant have been regularly nominated by the President of United
States to be Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers Plenipotentiary ‘to

the Assembly of American nations at Panama.’ The Senate, after
long and solemn deliberation, have advised and consented to their
appointment. These Ministers have been created—they have been
called into existence under the authority of the Constitution of the
United States. That venerated instrument declares, that the
President ‘shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators
present concur: and he shall nominate, and, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public
Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other
officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein
otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.’
What, then, will be the question upon the appropriation bill? In order
to enable our Ministers to proceed upon their mission, the President
has asked us to grant the necessary appropriation. Shall we incur
the responsibility of refusing? Shall we thus defeat the mission which
has already been established by the only competent constitutional
authorities? This House has, without doubt, the physical power to
refuse the appropriation, and it possesses the same power to
withhold his salary from the President of the United States. The true
question is, what is the nature of our constitutional obligation? Are
we not morally bound to pay the salaries given by existing laws to
every officer of the Government? By the act of the first May, 1810,
the outfit and salary to be allowed by the President to Foreign
Ministers are established. Such Ministers have been regularly
appointed to attend the Congress at Panama. What right then have
we to refuse to appropriate the salaries which they have a right to
receive, under the existing laws of the land?
“I admit there may be extreme cases, in which this House would
be justified in withholding such an appropriation. ‘The safety of the
people is the supreme law.’ If, therefore, we should believe any
mission to be dangerous, either to the existence or to the liberties of
this country, necessity would justify us in breaking the letter to
preserve the spirit of the Constitution. The same necessity would
equally justify us in refusing to grant to the President his salary, in
certain extreme cases, which might easily be imagined.

“But how far would your utmost power extend? Can you re-judge
the determination of the President and Senate, and destroy the
officers which they have created? Might not the President
immediately send these Ministers to Panama; and, if he did, would
not their acts be valid? It is certain, if they should go, they run the
risk of never receiving a salary; but still they might act as
Plenipotentiaries. By withholding the salary of the President, you
cannot withhold from him the power; neither can you, by refusing to
appropriate for this mission, deprive the Ministers of their authority.
It is beyond your control to make them cease to be Ministers.
“The constitutional obligation to provide for a Minister, is equally
strong as that to carry into effect a treaty. It is true, the evils which
may flow from your refusal may be greater in the one case than the
other. If you refuse to appropriate for a treaty, you violate the faith
of the country to a foreign nation. You do no more, however, than
omit to provide for the execution of an instrument which is declared
by the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land. In the case
which will be presented to you by the appropriation bill, is the nature
of your obligation different? I think not. The power to create the
Minister is contained in the same clause of the Constitution with that
to make the treaty. They are powers of the same nature. The one is
absolutely necessary to carry the other into effect. You cannot
negotiate treaties without Ministers. They are the means by which
the treaty-making power is brought into action. You are, therefore,
under the same moral obligation to appropriate money to discharge
the salary of a Minister, that you would be to carry a treaty into
effect.
“If you ask me for authority to establish these principles, I can
refer you to the opinion of the first President of the United States—
the immortal Father of his Country—who, in my humble judgment,
possessed more practical wisdom, more political foresight, and more
useful constitutional knowledge, than all his successors.
“I have thus, I think, established the position, that gentlemen who
vote for the amendments now before the committee, even if they
should not prevail, may, without inconsistency, give their support to
the appropriation bill.”

Sound as this was, it is a little remarkable that Mr.
Buchanan should not have considered that the duty
of voting the necessary appropriation precluded the
House of Representatives from dictating what
subjects the Ministers were to discuss or not to
discuss. Those who favored the proposed
amendments founded themselves on the legal maxim
that he who has the power to give may annex to the
gift whatever condition he chooses. This was well
answered by Mr. Webster, that in making
appropriations for such purposes the House did not
make gifts, but performed a duty. The amendments
were rejected on the 21st of April, and on the
following day the Panama Appropriation Bill was
passed, Mr. Buchanan voting with the majority.
[21]
Some of the topics incidentally touched upon in
the discursive debate on this Panama Mission are of
little interest now. But one may be referred to,
because it related to the dangerous topic of slavery.
An apprehension was felt by those who were
opposed to this measure, and by Mr. Buchanan,
among others, that the Spanish-American Republics,
more particularly Mexico and Colombia, might
concert measures at this proposed Congress to seize
the West India Islands, and raise there the standard
of emancipation and social revolution. Those who
entertained this apprehension, therefore, did not

wish to see the moral and political influence of this
proposed Congress increased by the participation of
the United States in its proceedings. It may have
been an unfounded fear; but in truth, excepting in so
far as the objects of this assembly were understood
and explained by the American Administration itself,
very little was known of the purposes entertained by
its original projectors. It was certainly not unnatural,
in the then condition of our own country, and of the
West Indies, in regard to the matter of slavery, that
public men in the United States should have been
cautious in regard to this exciting topic. At all events,
it was introduced incidentally, in the discussion on
the proposed Mission, and Mr. Buchanan thus
expressed himself upon it:
“Permit me here, for a moment, to speak upon a subject to which
I have never before adverted upon this floor, and to which, I trust, I
may never again have occasion to advert. I mean the subject of
slavery. I believe it to be a great political and a great moral evil. I
thank God, my lot has been cast in a State where it does not exist.
But, while I entertain these opinions, I know it is an evil at present
without a remedy. It has been a curse entailed upon us by that
nation which now makes it a subject of reproach to our institutions.
It is, however, one of those moral evils, from which it is impossible
for us to escape, without the introduction of evils infinitely greater.
There are portions of this Union, in which, if you emancipate your
slaves, they will become masters. There can be no middle course. Is
there any man in this Union who could, for a moment, indulge in the
horrible idea of abolishing slavery by the massacre of the high-
minded, and the chivalrous race of men in the South. I trust there is

not one. For my own part I would, without hesitation, buckle on my
knapsack, and march in company with my friend from Massachusetts
(Mr. Everett) in defence of their cause.”[22]

CHAPTER V.
1827–1829.
GREAT INCREASE OF GENERAL JACKSON’S POPULARITY
—“RETRENCHMENT” MADE A POLITICAL CRY—DEBATE ON THE
TARIFF—BUCHANAN ON INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS—THE
INTERESTS OF NAVIGATION—THE CUMBERLAND ROAD AGAIN
DISCUSSED—INELIGIBILITY OF A PRESIDENT.
The 20th Congress, which assembled in December,
1827, opened with a great increase in the forces of
the opposition. The elections in the autumn of 1826
evinced an extraordinary growth of General Jackson’s
popularity. Mr. Adams found himself in a minority in
both branches of Congress. In the House, the
opponents of his administration numbered 111
members, its friends 94. It is quite probable,
however, that but for the indiscretion of certain
members who have ranked as friends of the
administration, the angry and criminating discussion
of the subject of “retrenchment,” which was
deprecated by the wisest men of the opposition, but
into which they were forced, would not have

occurred. It was precipitated by the defiant attitude
of two or three members who should have allowed
the cool leaders of the opposition to strangle it, as
they were at first disposed to do. But once
commenced, it drew into bitter strife the excited
elements of party and personal warfare, and went on
through nearly a whole session with little credit to
some who participated in it, but in the end to the
great and not altogether just damage of the
administration.
It happened that on the 22d of January (1828) a
member from Kentucky, Mr. Chilton, an earnest
“Jackson man,” who had formerly been a clergyman
but was now a politician, introduced in the House
certain resolutions instructing the Committee of Ways
and Means to report what offices could be abolished,
what salaries reduced, and other modes of curtailing
the expenses of the government. It is apparent that
this could not have been a step taken by concert
with the leaders of the opposition. A party that was
daily growing in strength, and that was almost
morally certain to overthrow the party of the
administration, and to elect the next President, could
have had no motive for shackling themselves with a
legislative measure reducing the number of offices or
the salaries of the officers that must be retained.
They could not know in advance how they could

carry on the government, and it would be mere folly
for them to put laws on the statute-book framed
while they were not charged with the duties of
administration, and suggested only as a topic for
exciting popular discontent against those who were
responsible neither for the existing number of offices
nor for the salaries paid to them. “Retrenchment,” as
a popular cry, was not a movement which the
leading men of the opposition in the House of
Representatives either needed or desired to initiate.
Mr. McDuffie, the chairman of the Committee of
Ways and Means, and a vehement opponent of the
administration, objected to Mr. Chilton’s resolutions
at the outset. So did Mr. Buchanan; and the latter
often said, in subsequent years, that they would
have been crushed out of all consideration, if the
friends of the administration had left them in the
hands of its opponents. They were moved by an
inconsiderable member, who was one of the
stragglers of the opposition forces, and they were
met by administration members who were about
equally inconsiderable, in a tone of challenge and
defiance. In vain did Mr. McDuffie and Mr. Buchanan
contend that the present was no time to discuss the
expenditures of the government. In vain did the
most considerable and important friends of the
administration deprecate an unprofitable, intolerant,

and useless debate. The mover of the resolutions
would not be silenced, and the few indiscreet
supporters of the administration, who demanded that
their discussion should go on, would not permit them
to receive their proper quietus by the application of
“the previous question.” Never was a deliberative
body drawn, in spite of the unwillingness of its best
members on both sides, into a more unseemly and
profitless discussion.
Among the friends of General Jackson who
deprecated and endeavored to put a stop to this
discussion was Mr. Edward Livingston of Louisiana,
the oldest member of the House, and a person of
great distinction. He made an earnest appeal to the
House to end the whole matter by referring the
resolutions to a committee without further debate.
This was not acceded to by the friends of the
administration, who wished to continue the
discussion. Mr. Edward Everett, then a young
member from Massachusetts, moved an adjournment
after Mr. Livingston’s effort to terminate the whole
discussion, in order to make a speech, which he
delivered on the 1st of February. Mr. Buchanan said
in reply to him: “This debate would have ended on
Thursday last, after the solemn appeal for that
purpose, which was made to the House by the
venerable gentleman from Louisiana, had not the

gentleman from Massachusetts himself prevented it
by moving an adjournment. That gentleman ought to
know that he can never throw himself into any
debate without giving it fresh vigor and importance.”
In the course of this speech, Mr. Buchanan made
some allusion to the alleged “bargain and corruption”
by which Mr. Adams had been made President; and
he thus touched upon the only important
consideration that could be said to belong to the
circumstances of that election:
“Before, however, I commence my reply to that gentleman, I beg
leave to make a few observations on the last Presidential election. I
shall purposely pass over every charge which has been made, that it
was accomplished by bargain and sale or by actual corruption. If
that were the case, I have no knowledge of the fact, and shall
therefore say nothing about it. I shall argue this question as though
no such charges had ever been made. So far as it regards the
conduct which the people of the United States ought to pursue, at
the approaching election, I agree entirely with the eloquent
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Randolph] (I cannot with propriety call
him my friend), that it can make no difference whether a bargain
existed or not. Nay, in some aspects in which the subject may be
viewed, the danger to the people would be the greater, if no
corruption had existed. It is true, that this circumstance ought
greatly to influence our individual opinions of the men who now
wield the destinies of the Republic; but yet the precedent would be
at least equally dangerous in the one case as in the other. If flagrant
and gross corruption had existed, every honest man would start
from it with instinctive horror, and the people would indignantly hurl
those men from the seats of power, who had thus betrayed their
dearest interests. If the election were pure, there is, therefore, the
greater danger in the precedent. I believe, in my soul, that the

precedent which was established at the last Presidential election,
ought to be reversed by the people, and this is one of my principal
reasons for opposing the re-election of the present Chief Magistrate.
“Let us examine this subject more closely. General Jackson was
returned by the people of this country to the House of
Representatives, with a plurality of electoral votes. The distinguished
individual who is now the Secretary of State, was then the Speaker
of this House. It is perfectly well known, that, without his vote and
influence, Mr. Adams could not have been elected President. After
the election, we beheld that distinguished individual, and no man in
the United States witnessed the spectacle with more regret than I
did, descending—yes, Sir, I say descending—from the elevated
station which you now occupy, into the cabinet of the President
whom he had elected.
“‘Quantum mutatus ab illo.’
“In the midnight of danger, during the darkest period of the late
war, ‘his thrilling trump had cheered the land.’ Although among the
great men of that day there was no acknowledged leader upon this
floor, yet I have been informed, upon the best authority, that he was
‘primus inter pares.’ I did wish, at a future time, to see him elevated
still higher. I am one of the last men in the country who could
triumph over his fallen fortunes. Should he ever return to what I
believe to be correct political principles, I shall willingly fight in the
same ranks with him as a companion—nay, after a short probation, I
should willingly acknowledge him as a leader. What brilliant
prospects has that man not sacrificed!
“This precedent, should it be confirmed by the people at the next
election, will be one of most dangerous character to the Republic.
The election of President must, I fear, often devolve upon this
House. We have but little reason to expect that any amendment, in
relation to this subject, will be made to the Constitution in our day.
There are so many conflicting interests to reconcile, so many powers
to balance, that, when we consider the large majority in each branch
of Congress, and the still larger majority of States, required to

amend the Constitution, the prospect of any change is almost
hopeless. I believe it will long remain just as it is. What an example,
then, will this precedent, in the pure age of the Republic, present to
future times! The people owe it to themselves, if the election must
devolve upon this House, never to sanction the principle that one of
its members may accept, from the person whom he has elected, any
high office, much less the highest in his gift. Such a principle, if once
established, must, in the end, destroy the purity of this House, and
convert it into a corrupt electoral vote. If the individual to whom I
have alluded, could elect a President and receive from him the office
of Secretary of State from the purest motives, other men may, and
hereafter will, pursue the same policy from the most corrupt. ‘If they
do these things in the green tree, what shall be done in the dry?’
“This precedent will become a cover under which future bargains
and corrupt combinations will be sanctioned, under which the spirit
of the Constitution will be sacrificed to its letter.”
It is not needful to describe the topics of this
discussion. Mr. Chilton’s resolutions, after being
somewhat amended, were sent to a Select
Committee on Retrenchment. The result was a
majority and a minority report, of which six thousand
copies were printed and circulated through the
country. I turn from this subject to matters of more
importance.
Mr. Buchanan’s position in this Congress required
him to exert his powers as a debater more than ever
before. The House of Representatives was at this
time a body in which real debate was carried on
upon some subjects, however the discussion on
“retrenchment” may be characterized. Its discussions

on the tariff, commencing on the 4th of March and
terminating on the 15th of May, were conducted with
great ability. Among the best speeches on the tariff
bill of this session, there is one by Mr. Peleg Sprague
of Maine, and one by Mr. Buchanan. Both exhibit a
great deal of research. Mr. Buchanan’s speech, begun
in Committee of the Whole on the 2d of April, in
answer to Mr. Sprague, is an excellent specimen of
business debate. The details on which these two
gentlemen differed, and on which the debate
between them and others chiefly turned, are of little
interest now; nor does any tariff debate afford much
development of permanent principles. So varying are
the circumstances which from time to time give rise
to an application of the doctrines that are indicated
by the terms “free-trade” and “protection.” Still there
may be found in this tariff speech of Mr. Buchanan,
matter which is of some interest in his personal
history as an American statesman, because it shows
that he had now risen to the rank of a statesman,
and because it gives his general views of what had at
this time become known as “the American System.”
Mr. Buchanan, on this occasion, felt that he was
combating a disposition to favor certain interests at
the expense of others. In the debate on the tariff of
1824, when Mr. Clay developed his views on the
subject of protection, and Mr. Webster found fault

with the details of a measure which he said could not
be properly characterized as an American System,
Mr. Buchanan had shown that while he was ready to
accede to a tariff for the incidental protection of our
own manufactures, he was not disposed to carry the
doctrines of protection so far as to injure the
agricultural classes; but that in imposing the duties
necessary to defray the expenses of the government,
he should take care to benefit indirectly both the
manufacturing and the producing interests. In 1828
the proposed alterations of the tariff aimed at a more
uniform operation of the customs duties upon all the
great interests of the country. A motion made by Mr.
Sprague, to strike from the bill an additional duty of
five cents per gallon on molasses, and twenty-five
dollars per ton on hemp, led to a discussion on the
navigating interests, as affected by such an
amendment, and the whole subject of what was
meant by protection and “the American system”
came up afresh. The following extracts from Mr.
Buchanan’s speech afford fair specimens of his
manner of dealing with this subject:
I shall cheerfully submit to the public judgment whether the bill,
although I dislike the minimum principle which it contains, does not
afford sufficient protection to the manufacturers of woolens. I think
it does; but I wish to be distinctly understood, in relation to myself,
that I always stand ready, in a fair spirit, to do everything in my
power to promote the passage of a just and judicious tariff, which

shall be adequate for their protection; and that, for the sake of
conciliation, and to effect this purpose, I am willing to sacrifice
individual opinion to a considerable extent.
What, Sir, is the American System? Is it the system advocated by
the gentleman from Maine, which would build up one species of
domestic industry at the expense of all the rest, which would
establish a prohibition and consequent monopoly in favor of the
woolen manufacturer whilst it denied all protection to the farmer?
Certainly not. The American System consists in affording equal and
just legislative protection to all the great interests of the country. It
is no respecter of persons. It does not distinguish between the
farmer who plows the soil in Pennsylvania and the manufacturer of
wool in New England. Being impartial, it embraces all. There is, in
one respect, a striking difference between the farmer, the merchant,
and the manufacturer. The farmer eating the bread of toil, but of
independence, scarcely ever complains. If he suffers, he suffers in
silence; you rarely hear him, upon this floor, asking redress for his
grievances. He relies with that confidence which belongs to his
character upon the justice of his country, and does not come here
with importunate demands. The case is different in regard to the
manufacturer and the merchant. When they feel themselves
aggrieved—when they require the aid of your legislation, then
complaints ring throughout the country, from Georgia to Maine. They
never cease to ask, until they obtain. And shall this contented and
uncomplaining disposition of the great agricultural interest, be used
as an argument upon this floor against affording it relief? I trust not.
The gentleman from Maine has shown himself to be a true disciple
of the Harrisburg Convention School. Even that convention, although
the chief objects of their regard appeared to be wool and woolens,
recommended further protection to iron, hemp, flax, and the articles
manufactured from them, and to domestic distilled spirits. The
gentleman from Maine has moved to strike from the bill additional
duties which it proposes upon the importation of foreign hemp and
molasses; and in his speech, he has argued against any additional
duties either upon iron, or steel, or flax, or foreign spirits. In his

opinion, therefore, the American System can embrace no other
interest except that of the growers and manufacturers of wool.
[Here Mr. Sprague explained. He said his observations upon the
other items, besides those he had moved to strike from the bill, were
only intended to illustrate what would be their effect on the
navigating interest.]
Mr. Buchanan resumed. I perceive, from the gentleman’s
explanation, I did not misunderstand his argument. If this be the
American System, I should like to know it as soon as possible; for
then I shall be opposed to it. I venture to assert that, if those with
whom the gentleman from Maine usually acts upon this floor have
embraced the opinions which he has avowed, it is a vain, a culpable
waste of time to proceed further with this discussion. Let the bill at
once go to the tomb of all the Capulets. If the New England
manufacturer must be protected, whilst the Pennsylvania farmer is
abandoned—if this be the American System, instead of being a
mourner at its funeral, I shall rejoice that it has met the fate which it
deserved, and has been consigned to an early grave.
The Legislature of Pennsylvania has given us what, in my opinion,
is the correct version of the American System. They have declared
that “the best interests of our country demand that every possible
exertion should be made to procure the passage of an act of
Congress imposing such duties as will enable our manufacturers to
enter into fair competition with foreign manufacturers, and protect
the farmer, the growers of hemp and wool, and the distiller of spirits
from domestic materials, against foreign competition. The people of
Pennsylvania do not ask for such a tariff as would secure to any one
class, or to any section of the country, a monopoly. They want a
system of protection which will extend its blessings, as well as its
burdens, as equally as possible over every part of the Union; to be
uniform in its operation upon the rich as well as the poor.” They have
therefore instructed their Senators, and requested their
Representatives, “to procure, if practicable, the establishment of
such a tariff as will afford additional protection to our domestic

manufactures, especially of woolen and fine cotton goods, glass, and
such other articles as, in their opinion, require the attention of
Congress, so as to enable our citizens fairly to compete with foreign
enterprise, capital, and experience, and give encouragement to the
citizens of the grain-growing States, by laying an additional duty
upon the importation of foreign spirits, flax, china ware, hemp, wool,
and bar iron.”
This resolution speaks a language which I am proud to hear from
the Legislature of my native State.
If it be the disposition of a majority of the members of this
committee to strike out of the bill iron, hemp, foreign spirits and
molasses, no Representative from the State of Pennsylvania, who
regards either the interest or the wishes of his constituents, will dare
to vote for what would then remain. The time has forever past when
such a measure could have received our sanction. We shall have no
more exclusive tariffs for the benefit of any one portion of the Union.
The tariff of 1824 partook much of this character; it contained no
additional duty on foreign spirits or molasses, and only added five
dollars per ton to the duty on foreign hemp. So far as the grain-
growing States expected to derive peculiar benefits from that
measure, they have been, in a great degree, disappointed.
What was the course which gentlemen pursued in relation to the
woolen bill of the last session? I endeavored to introduce into it a
small protection for our hemp and domestic spirits. We were then
told that my attempt would endanger the fate of the bill; that the
period of the session was too late to introduce amendments; and
that if we would then extend protection to the manufacturers of
wool, a similar protection should, at a future time, be extended to
the agricultural interest of the grain-growing States. My respectable
colleague [Mr. Forward] has informed the committee that he voted
for the bill of the last session under that delusion. How sadly the
picture is now reversed! When an interest in New England, which
has been estimated at 40,000,000 of dollars, is at stake, and is now
about to sink, as has been alleged, for want of adequate protection,
it seems that gentlemen from that portion of the Union would rather
consign it to inevitable destruction than yield the protection which

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
testbankdeal.com

Operating Systems 3rd Edition Nutt Solutions Manual

More Related Content

Similar to Operating Systems 3rd Edition Nutt Solutions Manual (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Operating Systems 3rd Edition Nutt Solutions Manual