1841年3月4日，威廉·哈里森在華盛頓特區(qū)正式就任美國第9任總統(tǒng)。

威廉·哈里森來自美國輝格黨，他是第一名來自于輝格黨的美國總統(tǒng)；他是軍人出身，參加過1812年英美戰(zhàn)爭和多場針對印第安部落的戰(zhàn)爭。

由于他就任總統(tǒng)時年事已高，就職典禮當日氣溫又較低，而他的就職演講稿又過長(全文共8342個單詞)，導致他在就職典禮染上了傷寒，傷寒迅速引起了急性肺炎，哈里森總統(tǒng)在典禮結束后身體狀況迅速惡化，長期臥床不起，最終于1841年4月4日在華盛頓的白宮逝世，享年68歲。從3月4日到4月4日，他在任時間只有短短一個月，是目前任職時間最短的美國總統(tǒng)，他也是第一名死于任上的美國總統(tǒng)。同時他的演講也是目前所有美國總統(tǒng)就職演講中最長的一篇。

在演講中，哈里森總統(tǒng)表現(xiàn)出了堅定，甚至有些迂腐的共和派立場，他認為美國總統(tǒng)有2屆任期還是太長，為做表率，他承諾自己只會擔任1屆總統(tǒng)；他的口中也可以看出明顯的“昭昭天命”價值觀。

由于任期過短，加之哈里森總統(tǒng)因重病喪失了執(zhí)政能力，所以他對內、對外無任何政績。

他逝世后，美國原副總統(tǒng)約翰·泰勒于1841年4月4日接替他成為美國總統(tǒng)。

注：由于哈里森總統(tǒng)的演講稿過長，超出單個專欄字數上限，演講全文將分為兩期專欄發(fā)布。本專欄為上半部分。

The liberties of a people depend on their own constant attention to its preservation. —— William Henry Harrison

一個民族能否享有自由，取決自己是否時刻注意保護自由。?—— 威廉·亨利·哈里森

Called from a retirement which I had supposed was to continue for the residue of my life to fill the chief executive office of this great and free nation, I appear before you, fellow-citizens, to take the oaths which the Constitution prescribes as a necessary qualification for the performance of its duties; and in obedience to a custom coeval with our Government and what I believe to be your expectations I proceed to present to you a summary of the principles which will govern me in the discharge of the duties which I shall be called upon to perform.

我本打算退休，安度晚年，但受到人民號召來就任這個偉大自由國家的最高行政官，同胞們，我按照憲法規(guī)定，在就職總統(tǒng)之前，于眾目睽睽之下莊嚴宣誓；且按照慣例，我覺得大家會希望我陳述自己將來治國理政所采用的的行政原則總結。

It was the remark of a Roman consul in an early period of that celebrated Republic that a most striking contrast was observable in the conduct of candidates for offices of power and trust before and after obtaining them, they seldom carrying out in the latter case the pledges and promises made in the former. However much the world may have improved in many respects in the lapse of upward of two thousand years since the remark was made by the virtuous and indignant Roman, I fear that a strict examination of the annals of some of the modern elective governments would develop similar instances of violated confidence.

早在羅馬共和國早期，就有一位執(zhí)政官說過，候選人就任要職前后的行為會有極大的反差，他們就職前各種承諾說的天花亂墜，就職后幾乎沒人履行諾言。雖然偉大義憤的羅馬人說出此言后的2000年里，世界在各方面都向好的方向發(fā)展，但我恐怕，如果我們在民選政府內每年做一次嚴明調查，依然能發(fā)現(xiàn)此類背棄人民信任的情況。

Although the fiat of the people has gone forth proclaiming me the Chief Magistrate of this glorious Union, nothing upon their part remaining to be done, it may be thought that a motive may exist to keep up the delusion under which they may be supposed to have acted in relation to my principles and opinions; and perhaps there may be some in this assembly who have come here either prepared to condemn those I shall now deliver, or, approving them, to doubt the sincerity with which they are now uttered. But the lapse of a few months will confirm or dispel their fears. The outline of principles to govern and measures to be adopted by an Administration not yet begun will soon be exchanged for immutable history, and I shall stand either exonerated by my countrymen or classed with the mass of those who promised that they might deceive and flattered with the intention to betray. However strong may be my present purpose to realize the expectations of a magnanimous and confiding people, I too well understand the dangerous temptations to which I shall be exposed from the magnitude of the power which it has been the pleasure of the people to commit to my hands not to place my chief confidence upon the aid of that Almighty Power which has hitherto protected me and enabled me to bring to favorable issues other important but still greatly inferior trusts heretofore confided to me by my country.

雖然人民命令我就任我們偉大聯(lián)邦的最高行政官之后，他們的責任已盡，但是有人可能會覺得，我有動機讓人民產生一種他們本就應該支持我行政原則、觀點的錯覺；可能在場的人中，就有人會反對我的行政原則，亦或贊成我的行政原則，但懷疑我是否真的會執(zhí)行這些原則。但僅需幾個月，我就將驅散大家的憂慮。尚未運轉的新政府為治國所采取的行政原則措施，將成為歷史上不朽的一頁，所以同胞們請消除對我的懷疑，否則就會將我視為靠欺騙奉承、意圖背叛人民之輩。盡管我為寬容自信的美利堅民族實現(xiàn)夢想的希望十分強烈，但我也清楚，人民愿意將如此巨大的權力交于我手中，同時隨之而來的還有難以抵抗的誘惑，這次我不能再寄希望于萬能的上帝給予我?guī)椭?，上帝一直保護著我，使我能夠渡過各個難關，但人民既然信任我，我便不可再將主要希望寄托在上帝身上。

The broad foundation upon which our Constitution rests being the people——a breath of theirs having made, as a breath can unmake, change, or modify it——it can be assigned to none of the great divisions of government but to that of democracy. If such is its theory, those who are called upon to administer it must recognize as its leading principle the duty of shaping their measures so as to produce the greatest good to the greatest number. But with these broad admissions, if we would compare the sovereignty acknowledged to exist in the mass of our people with the power claimed by other sovereignties, even by those which have been considered most purely democratic, we shall find a most essential difference.?

我國憲法的擁有廣大人民作為基礎——一部分人民制定了憲法，也有一部分人想要修改、篡改甚至廢除憲法——只有民主政府才會擁有憲法，其他政體屆無憲法?；谠摾碚?，受到憲法號召的人必須清楚，采取各類措施為最廣大的人民謀福利乃是憲法的首要原則。但除開這些泛泛之論，如若我們將我國的人民主權同他國主權對比，即使是跟那些自稱完全民主的國家對比，我們同樣可以發(fā)現(xiàn)一個本質區(qū)別。

All others lay claim to power limited only by their own will. The majority of our citizens, on the contrary, possess a sovereignty with an amount of power precisely equal to that which has been granted to them by the parties to the national compact, and nothing beyond. We admit of no government by divine right, believing that so far as power is concerned the Beneficent Creator has made no distinction amongst men; that all are upon an equality, and that the only legitimate right to govern is an express grant of power from the governed.?

其他國家所謂的權力限制，實際上只不過是受到它們統(tǒng)治者的個人意志限制。我國則相反，我國的大多數公民都享有國家主權，他們擁有社會契約賜予他們的權力，一絲不多也一絲不少。我們不承認君權神授，我們認為在權力這方面，上帝并沒有將人類分為三六九等；所有人都是平等的，只有得到了被治理的人民授權才是合法政府。

The Constitution of the United States is the instrument containing this grant of power to the several departments composing the Government. On an examination of that instrument it will be found to contain declarations of power granted and of power withheld. The latter is also susceptible of division into power which the majority had the right to grant, but which they do not think proper to intrust to their agents, and that which they could not have granted, not being possessed by themselves. In other words, there are certain rights possessed by each individual American citizen which in his compact with the others he has never surrendered.?Some of them, indeed, he is unable to surrender, being, in the language of our system, unalienable.?

美國憲法就是這么一部文獻，其內容包含了此類授權，以及如何將權力分配到政府各部門。只要仔細閱讀憲法，就可以看到其中包括人民授予政府的權力和人民保留的權力。后者也包括多數人民有權授予、但沒有合適授權人選而保留的權力，以及他們無權授予，卻不在自己手上的權力。換而言之，有一部分權利是每一名美國公民都擁有的，而且他不能在任何社會契約中放棄這些權利。部分權利是人民無權放棄的，或者用我們制度的話來說，是不可分割的。

The boasted privilege of a Roman citizen was to him a shield only against a petty provincial ruler, whilst the proud democrat of Athens would console himself under a sentence of death for a supposed violation of the national faith——which no one understood and which at times was the subject of the mockery of all——or the banishment from his home, his family, and his country with or without an alleged cause, that it was the act not of a single tyrant or hated aristocracy, but of his assembled countrymen. Far different is the power of our sovereignty. It can interfere with no one's faith, prescribe forms of worship for no one's observance, inflict no punishment but after well-ascertained guilt, the result of investigation under rules prescribed by the Constitution itself.?

羅馬公民引以為傲的權利，也只不過能保護他們不受小地方統(tǒng)治者的迫害，而雅典民主人士在因背棄國家信仰而被判死刑時，以接受放逐來尋求慰藉——無人會了解他們的具體情況，他們甚至成為所有人嘲笑的對象——他們因莫須有的罪名而和自己的家人分離，背井離鄉(xiāng)，而這一切實際上只不過是某個暴君、貴族的操控，亦或是多數人的暴政。我國的人民主權則大不相同。我國不干涉任何人的信仰，不規(guī)定任何宗教形式，也不會因此懲罰任何人，而是在充分調查，確定其有罪后，再根據憲法具體規(guī)定進行處罰。

These precious privileges, and those scarcely less important of giving expression to his thoughts and opinions, either by writing or speaking, unrestrained but by the liability for injury to others, and that of a full participation in all the advantages which flow from the Government, the acknowledged property of all, the American citizen derives from no charter granted by his fellow-man. He claims them because he is himself a man, fashioned by the same Almighty hand as the rest of his species and entitled to a full share of the blessings with which He has endowed them. Not with standing the limited sovereignty possessed by the people of the United States and the restricted grant of power to the Government which they have adopted, enough has been given to accomplish all the objects for which it was created. It has been found powerful in war, and hitherto justice has been administered, and intimate union effected, domestic tranquillity preserved, and personal liberty secured to the citizen. As was to be expected, however, from the defect of language and the necessarily sententious manner in which the Constitution is written, disputes have arisen as to the amount of power which it has actually granted or was intended to grant.

以上寶貴的權利，以及幾乎同樣重要的自由表達自己思想觀念的權利，無論是通過書寫還是話語，只要不侵犯他人權利，言論自由就應不受限制，同時人人都有從政府產出的利益得到分配的權利，政府產出的利益乃是全體人民之共同財產，美國公民這一權利不是任何同胞的法律賦予的。他享有這些權利，只因為他是個人，他和大家一樣出自造物主之手，因此有資格得到上帝賜予全人類的福祉。雖然美國人民擁有的主權有限，他們賦予政府的權力也有限，但這些全力已經足以完成美國建立之初設立的目標。戰(zhàn)爭已經證明了我們國家是強而有力的，截止至今，我國治理得平等公正，各州緊密地團結在聯(lián)邦中，維護著國內和平安寧，保護著公民的人身自由。然而，正如早前所預料的那樣，憲法的文字并不完善，其起草時的又不得不簡潔話語，因此憲法賦予、保留的權力具體是哪些權力，已經在國內引起了爭議。

This is more particularly the case in relation to that part of the instrument which treats of the legislative branch, and not only as regards the exercise of powers claimed under a general clause giving that body the authority to pass all laws necessary to carry into effect the specified powers, but in relation to the latter also. It is, however, consolatory to reflect that most of the instances of alleged departure from the letter or spirit of the Constitution have ultimately received the sanction of a majority of the people. And the fact that many of our statesmen most distinguished for talent and patriotism have been at one time or other of their political career on both sides of each of the most warmly disputed questions forces upon us the inference that the errors, if errors there were, are attributable to the intrinsic difficulty in many instances of ascertaining the intentions of the framers of the Constitution rather than the influence of any sinister or unpatriotic motive.?

這部文獻中涉及里立法部門的部門更是爭議巨大，爭議不僅包括根據憲法總條款，授予政府行使權力、通過法律、執(zhí)行法律等具體權力，還包括這些權力本身是否能夠授予。不過，我們很欣慰看到多數違反憲法精神內容的行為都遭到了廣大人民的制裁。其實，我國有許多以其個人才華和愛國熱情而廣為人知的政治家，他們在政治生涯中遇到這一類爭議巨大的問題時，都有過前后站在兩個不同立場上的情況，因此我們可以推斷出，如果憲法存在錯誤的話，這些錯誤可能是因為我們無法搞清楚制憲者如此規(guī)定的真正意圖導致的，而不是因為那些政客有邪惡和叛國想法。

But the great danger to our institutions does not appear to me to be in a usurpation by the Government of power not granted by the people, but by the accumulation in one of the departments of that which was assigned to others. Limited as are the powers which have been granted, still enough have been granted to constitute a despotism if concentrated in one of the departments. This danger is greatly heightened, as it has been always observable that men are less jealous of encroachments of one department upon another than upon their own reserved rights. When the Constitution of the United States first came from the hands of the Convention which formed it, many of the sternest republicans of the day were alarmed at the extent of the power which had been granted to the Federal Government, and more particularly of that portion which had been assigned to the executive branch.?

不過我覺得，對我國制度所面臨的最大威脅并非是政府篡取人民未授予的權力，而是某個政府部門篡取其他部門的權力。雖然人民授予政府的權力有限，但是如果這些權力全部集中在某個政府部門，依然足以形成專制政府。這種威脅日益上升，因為人們更關注自身的權力是否受到侵犯，從而忽視了政府部門權力遭到侵犯的現(xiàn)象。當美國憲法在制憲會議上橫空出世時，許多堅定的共和派人士對聯(lián)邦政府得到的權力之大感到震驚，尤其是總統(tǒng)獲得的權力。

There were in it features which appeared not to be in harmony with their ideas of a simple representative democracy or republic, and knowing the tendency of power to increase itself, particularly when exercised by a single individual, predictions were made that at no very remote period the Government would terminate in virtual monarchy. It would not become me to say that the fears of these patriots have been already realized; but as I sincerely believe that the tendency of measures and of men's opinions for some years past has been in that direction, it is, I conceive, strictly proper that I should take this occasion to repeat the assurances I have heretofore given of my determination to arrest the progress of that tendency if it really exists and restore the Government to its pristine health and vigor, as far as this can be effected by any legitimate exercise of the power placed in my hands.

因為這與他們構想中單純的代議制民主共和國所具有的的特征不相符，而且權力自身也會有集中的趨勢，這種趨勢在個人集權時更加明顯，因此有人認為，共和政府很快就會名存實亡，取而代之的是粉飾之下的君主制。雖然截止到我任職之時，這些愛國者的擔憂仍未變成現(xiàn)實；但我確實相信，過去幾年的政策和輿論都在朝這個趨勢發(fā)展(這里是輝格黨攻擊杰克遜總統(tǒng)的說法)，我覺得我應當借此場合重申我的承諾：如果這種趨勢存在，我勢必會運用我手中的合法權力阻止其進一步蔓延，并修復共和國政府，使其重新充滿活力。

I proceed to state in as summary a manner as I can my opinion of the sources of the evils which have been so extensively complained of and the correctives which may be applied. Some of the former are unquestionably to be found in the defects of the Constitution; others, in my judgment, are attributable to a misconstruction of some of its provisions. Of the former is the eligibility of the same individual to a second term of the Presidency. The sagacious mind of Mr. Jefferson early saw and lamented this error, and attempts have been made, hitherto without success, to apply the amendatory power of the States to its correction.?

我再盡可能概括地談談讓大家悲聲載道的不幸根源問題，以及我將運用什么方法解決這些問題。毫無疑問，這些不幸一部分是憲法的缺陷導致的；另一部分，我認為是因為我們對憲法的部分條款存在誤解。憲法的缺陷是，允許同一個人有資格擔任兩屆總統(tǒng)。睿智的杰斐遜總統(tǒng)很早就注意到了這一缺陷，并對此深惡痛絕，我們曾多次嘗試動用各州的修正權彌補這一缺陷，可惜迄今為止仍未成功。

As, however, one mode of correction is in the power of every President, and consequently in mine, it would be useless, and perhaps invidious, to enumerate the evils of which, in the opinion of many of our fellow-citizens, this error of the sages who framed the Constitution may have been the source and the bitter fruits which we are still to gather from it if it continues to disfigure our system. It may be observed, however, as a general remark, that republics can commit no greater error than to adopt or continue any feature in their systems of government which may be calculated to create or increase the lover of power in the bosoms of those to whom necessity obliges them to commit the management of their affairs; and surely nothing is more likely to produce such a state of mind than the long continuance of an office of high trust.?

每一任總統(tǒng)都有權力修正此缺陷，我也一樣，許多同胞認為，指出憲法的缺陷不僅無法解決實際問題，反而可能招致民眾不滿，但是我必須指出偉大的制憲者們在制定憲法時犯下的錯誤，這是我們當今一切不幸的根源，如果我們任由其損害我國制度，終會自食惡果?？偠灾覀兛梢钥吹焦埠蛧杏行┮蛩貢T使公職人員心中滋生對權力的野心，這是愚不可及的錯誤；毫無疑問，長期擔任總統(tǒng)這么一個萬眾矚目的職位更會助長這種野心。

Nothing can be more corrupting, nothing more destructive of all those noble feelings which belong to the character of a devoted republican patriot. When this corrupting passion once takes possession of the human mind, like the love of gold it becomes insatiable. It is the never-dying worm in his bosom, grows with his growth and strengthens with the declining years of its victim. If this is true, it is the part of wisdom for a republic to limit the service of that officer at least to whom she has intrusted the management of her foreign relations, the execution of her laws, and the command of her armies and navies to a period so short as to prevent his forgetting that he is the accountable agent, not the principal; the servant, not the master. Until an amendment of the Constitution can be effected public opinion may secure the desired object. I give my aid to it by renewing the pledge heretofore given that under no circumstances will I consent to serve a second term.

對權力的野心最能腐蝕、摧毀一名愛國者的高尚情操。這種腐化的思想一旦控制了人心，就會像對黃金的迷戀一樣，變得一發(fā)不可收拾。這種思想就像人心中的蠕蟲一樣，隨著宿主的壯大而成長，吸取受害者的鮮血以不斷變強。如果這一切成真，那么共和國起碼應將外交事務、法律事務和軍事事務的職務任期限制在較短的時間內，以提醒公職人員他們是代理人，不是負責人；他們是公仆，而非統(tǒng)治者。在相關憲法修正案通過之前，我希望公眾輿論可以幫助我們限制公職人員，以達成此目的。為幫助實現(xiàn)這一目標，我再次立下誓言，我絕不尋求第二屆總統(tǒng)任期。

But if there is danger to public liberty from the acknowledged defects of the Constitution in the want of limit to the continuance of the Executive power in the same hands, there is, I apprehend, not much less from a misconstruction of that instrument as it regards the powers actually given. I can not conceive that by a fair construction any or either of its provisions would be found to constitute the President a part of the legislative power. It can not be claimed from the power to recommend, since, although enjoined as a duty upon him, it is a privilege which he holds in common with every other citizen; and although there may be something more of confidence in the propriety of the measures recommended in the one case than in the other, in the obligations of ultimate decision there can be no difference. In the language of the Constitution, "all the legislative powers" which it grants "are vested in the Congress of the United States." It would be a solecism in language to say that any portion of these is not included in the whole.

如果為限制行政權在同一人手中而修正憲法缺陷對公眾自由造成了威脅，那么我認為，曲解憲法規(guī)定總統(tǒng)的權力也會造成一樣的惡果。我通讀了整個憲法條文，也找不到哪段條款規(guī)定了總統(tǒng)享有部分立法權?？偨y(tǒng)雖然有不可剝奪的提案權，這不僅是總統(tǒng)的義務，也是每一位美國公民都享有的權利；雖然部分情況下，總統(tǒng)的提案會得到更多議員的支持，但這對于最終做出決策的國會來說，這對其職能沒有任何影響。用憲法的話語來說，其已將“一切立法權”授予“美國國會”。如果說“一切立法權”不包括總統(tǒng)持有的那部分立法權的話，那這句話肯定是一個病句。

There is no part of the means placed in the hands of the Executive which might be used with greater effect for unhallowed purposes than the control of the public press. The maxim which our ancestors derived from the mother country that "the freedom of the press is the great bulwark of civil and religious liberty" is one of the most precious legacies which they have left us. We have learned, too, from our own as well as the experience of other countries, that golden shackles, by whomsoever or by whatever pretense imposed, are as fatal to it as the iron bonds of despotism. The presses in the necessary employment of the Government should never be used "to clear the guilty or to varnish crime." A decent and manly examination of the acts of the Government should be not only tolerated, but encouraged.

總統(tǒng)可以采取的手段中，沒有任何可用于控制公眾輿論等骯臟目的的措施。我們祖先受祖國啟發(fā)，為我們留下的最寶貴遺產之一便是“新聞自由是公民自由和宗教自由的堅實壁壘”(譯者注:引用自1809年麥迪遜總統(tǒng)的就職演講)。我們從我國和他國歷史上都可以學到，無論任何人以任何理由給我們戴上多么珠光寶氣的枷鎖，其都與專制主義的鐵鏈一樣致命。媒體在對政府重要工作進行報道時，絕不能幫助其“粉飾錯誤和消匿罪名”。政府不僅應容忍新聞媒體對其進行適當檢查，還應該鼓勵這種行為。

Upon another occasion I have given my opinion at some length upon the impropriety of Executive interference in the legislation of Congress——that the article in the Constitution making it the duty of the President to communicate information and authorizing him to recommend measures was not intended to make him the source in legislation, and, in particular, that he should never be looked to for schemes of finance. It would be very strange, indeed, that the Constitution should have strictly forbidden one branch of the Legislature from interfering in the origination of such bills and that it should be considered proper that an altogether different department of the Government should be permitted to do so. Some of our best political maxims and opinions have been drawn from our parent isle. There are others, however, which can not be introduced in our system without singular incongruity and the production of much mischief, and this I conceive to be one.?

我曾在其他場合就總統(tǒng)干涉國會立法的行為發(fā)表了一些觀點——根據憲法規(guī)定，總統(tǒng)有義務向國會做出報告，并有權建議采取其相關措施，這并不代表總統(tǒng)就成為了立法權的來源，更不應該由總統(tǒng)主管財政計劃。的確很奇怪，憲法本應該嚴格禁止立法部門干涉財政，財政計劃應交由其他政府部門負責才恰當。我們最出色的部分政治格言和觀點都汲取自我們的祖先之地，即不列顛島。但是也有些觀點是不該引入的，否則不利于我國制度的和睦健全，我相信財政觀點是其中之一。

No matter in which of the houses of Parliament a bill may originate nor by whom introduced——a minister or a member of the opposition—— by the fiction of law, or rather of Constitutional principle, the sovereign is supposed to have prepared it agreeably to his will and then submitted it to Parliament for their advice and consent. Now the very reverse is the case here, not only with regard to the principle, but the forms prescribed by the Constitution. The principle certainly assigns to the only body constituted by the Constitution (the legislative body) the power to make laws, and the forms even direct that the enactment should be ascribed to them. The Senate, in relation to revenue bills, have the right to propose amendments, and so has the Executive by the power given him to return them to the House of Representatives with his objections. It is in his power also to propose amendments in the existing revenue laws, suggested by his observations upon their defective or injurious operation. But the delicate duty of devising schemes of revenue should be left where the Constitution has placed it——with the immediate representatives of the people. For similar reasons the mode of keeping the public treasure should be prescribed by them, and the further removed it may be from the control of the Executive the more wholesome the arrangement and the more in accordance with republican principle.

不管一項法案由議會的上院還是下院提出——也無論是政府大臣還是反對黨成員等任何人提出，也不論是根據法律擬制還是根據憲章原則，英王都會先使該方案順從自己的意愿，再交由議會征求意見和認可。而我們現(xiàn)在的情況和英國恰好相反，不僅是原則不同，憲章的形式也不同。我們的原則認為憲法只應該將制定法律內容、形式和允許法律通過的權力交于一個機構(即立法機構)。參議院有權對財政法案提出修正案，總統(tǒng)若對法案不滿，也有權將其交于眾議院進一步商議。如果總統(tǒng)認為現(xiàn)行的財政法案有缺陷、害處，也有權提出修正案。但是制定財政計劃的偉大使命應交于憲法指定的人——人民的直接代表們。出于同樣的原因，人民代表們應該設法保管好國庫資金，尤其是防止總統(tǒng)將其據為己有，保險措施越健全，也就越符合共和原則。

Connected with this subject is the character of the currency. The idea of making it exclusively metallic, however well intended, appears to me to be fraught with more fatal consequences than any other scheme having no relation to the personal rights of the citizens that has ever been devised. If any single scheme could produce the effect of arresting at once that mutation of condition by which thousands of our most indigent fellow-citizens by their industry and enterprise are raised to the possession of wealth, that is the one. If there is one measure better calculated than another to produce that state of things so much deprecated by all true republicans, by which the rich are daily adding to their hoards and the poor sinking deeper into penury, it is an exclusive metallic currency. Or if there is a process by which the character of the country for generosity and nobleness of feeling may be destroyed by the great increase and neck toleration of usury, it is an exclusive metallic currency.

談到這個話題，我們不得不提到貨幣的特性。有人提出應當完全采用硬通貨，盡管這種想法可能用意十分美好，但是我認為其帶來的后果之嚴重，遠超任何無關公民權利的事務。我國廣大的貧苦同胞在自己的行業(yè)通過勤勞和進取獲得財富，如果我們采用了這種想法，那么他們的努力成果就會瞬間化為泡影。全面硬通貨應當引起全體共和派人士的抵制，因為它會使富人越來越富，窮人越來越窮。還有，我國人民追求慷慨和高尚情感的特性也可能會被無法遏制、被迫容忍的高利貸摧毀。

Amongst the other duties of a delicate character which the President is called upon to perform is the supervision of the government of the Territories of the United States. Those of them which are destined to become members of our great political family are compensated by their rapid progress from infancy to manhood for the partial and temporary deprivation of their political rights. It is in this District only where American citizens are to be found who under a settled policy are deprived of many important political privileges without any inspiring hope as to the future. Their only consolation under circumstances of such deprivation is that of the devoted exterior guards of a camp——that their sufferings secure tranquillity and safety within. Are there any of their countrymen, who would subject them to greater sacrifices, to any other humiliations than those essentially necessary to the security of the object for which they were thus separated from their fellow-citizens? Are their rights alone not to be guaranteed by the application of those great principles upon which all our Constitutions are founded??

美國總統(tǒng)還有其他任務，比如需要監(jiān)督美國各領地的政府。成為我們這個偉大政治家族的一部分是這些領土的天命，雖然這些領土暫時沒有獲得政治權利，但是隨著它們快速發(fā)展成長，終有一天會作為州加入我們。只有在哥倫比亞特區(qū)居住的美國公民因為一項政策被剝奪了許多重要政治權利，且在未來也無望獲得這些權利。雖然被剝奪了權利，但他們是我們營地外的衛(wèi)士，他們的犧牲維護了營地內的安寧，這是他們唯一的慰藉。他們?yōu)榇吮黄扰c同胞分離，蒙受了許多羞辱，做出了許多必要犧牲，難道我們的同胞們有人愿意讓他們付出進一步犧牲嗎？難道捍衛(wèi)他們權利的，只有憲法中的偉大原則嗎？

We are told by the greatest of British orators and statesmen that at the commencement of the War of the Revolution the most stupid men in England spoke of "their American subjects." Are there, indeed, citizens of any of our States who have dreamed of their subjects in the District of Columbia? Such dreams can never be realized by any agency of mine. The people of the District of Columbia are not the subjects of the people of the States, but free American citizens. Being in the latter condition when the Constitution was formed, no words used in that instrument could have been intended to deprive them of that character. If there is anything in the great principle of unalienable rights so emphatically insisted upon in our Declaration of Independence, they could neither make nor the United States accept a surrender of their liberties and become the subjects——in other words, the slaves——of their former fellow-citizens. If this be true——and it will scarcely be denied by anyone who has a correct idea of his own rights as an American citizen——the grant to Congress of exclusive jurisdiction in the District of Columbia can be interpreted, so far as respects the aggregate people of the United States, as meaning nothing more than to allow to Congress the controlling power necessary to afford a free and safe exercise of the functions assigned to the General Government by the Constitution. In all other respects the legislation of Congress should be adapted to their peculiar position and wants and be conformable with their deliberate opinions of their own interests.

一位偉大的英國演說家和政治家曾對我們說過，獨立戰(zhàn)爭剛開始時，英國最愚蠢的人都在談及“他們的美洲臣民”。難道我們各州有人希望在哥倫比亞特區(qū)擁有自己的臣民嗎？只要我在任，這種希望就永遠不會變成現(xiàn)實。哥倫比亞特區(qū)的人民不是其他各州人民的臣民，他們一樣是自由的美國公民。根據美國憲法，只要他們是美國公民，他們的自由就神圣不可侵犯。自由是我們在《獨立宣言》中反復強調不可剝奪的權利，他們既不能，美國也不會接受他們交出自己的自由，選擇成為他們前同胞的臣民——或者說，奴隸。既然如此，任何對美國公民權利有正確認知的人都不該否認這一點——尊重美國全體人民的前提下，授權國會在哥倫比亞特區(qū)擁有專屬管轄權是能夠理解的，其概念無非就是授予國會必要的管轄權，方便聯(lián)邦政府自由、安全地行使其職能。在除此之外的其他方面，國會其他立法就應當考慮哥倫比亞特區(qū)的特殊地位和需求，仔細思考后做出符合其利益的決定。

I have spoken of the necessity of keeping the respective departments of the Government, as well as all the other authorities of our country, within their appropriate orbits. This is a matter of difficulty in some cases, as the powers which they respectively claim are often not defined by any distinct lines. Mischievous, however, in their tendencies as collisions of this kind may be, those which arise between the respective communities which for certain purposes compose one nation are much more so, for no such nation can long exist without the careful culture of those feelings of confidence and affection which are the effective bonds to union between free and confederated states. Strong as is the tie of interest, it has been often found ineffectual. Men blinded by their passions have been known to adopt measures for their country in direct opposition to all the suggestions of policy.?

我此前已經談過，讓聯(lián)邦政府各部門在自己管轄范圍內活動的必要性。有些時候這并非易事，因為他們所負責的權力往往并沒有明確的界限。但是這類沖突可能會造成危害，尤其是某些團體可能為了一些特別目的而自己獨立建國的情況，這樣建立的國家是不可能長久存在的，因為它無法切斷自己和聯(lián)邦內各自由州的聯(lián)系。雖然各州之間的利息聯(lián)系十分緊密，但也不見得可以有效阻止這種情況發(fā)生。眾所周知，人一時上頭就會被蒙蔽，不顧一切政策勸解，采取措施建國。

The alternative, then, is to destroy or keep down a bad passion by creating and fostering a good one, and this seems to be the corner stone upon which our American political architects have reared the fabric of our Government. The cement which was to bind it and perpetuate its existence was the affectionate attachment between all its members. To insure the continuance of this feeling, produced at first by a community of dangers, of sufferings, and of interests, the advantages of each were made accessible to all. No participation in any good possessed by any member of our extensive Confederacy, except in domestic government, was withheld from the citizen of any other member. By aprocess attended with no difficulty, no delay, no expense but that of removal, the citizen of one might become the citizen of any other, and successively of the whole.?

為抑制或消滅這種不利的感情，我們應當培養(yǎng)出一種利于我們的感情取而代之，這種方法似乎是美國政治締造者們創(chuàng)建聯(lián)邦政府形式的基石。聯(lián)邦內各成員的相依相愛構成了我們牢不可破的紐帶。我們最初因面臨共同威脅、經歷過共同苦難，因共同利益而聯(lián)合到一起，想要將這種感情延續(xù)下去，就必須要做到有福同享。在我們廣闊的聯(lián)邦中，一州除自己州內部的利益外，其他所有利益皆需分享給其他州的公民。一名公民僅需遷移，無需花費，不會拖延，也不會遇到任何阻礙，即可從一州公民成為另一州的公民，自然也是聯(lián)邦公民。

The lines, too, separating powers to be exercised by the citizens of one State from those of another seem to be so distinctly drawn as to leave no room for misunderstanding. The citizens of each State unite in their persons all the privileges which that character confers and all that they may claim as citizens of the United States, but in no case can the same persons at the same time act as the citizen of two separate States, and he is therefore positively precluded from any interference with the reserved powers of any State but that of which he is for the time being a citizen. He may, indeed, offer to the citizens of other States his advice as to their management, and the form in which it is tendered is left to his own discretion and sense of propriety. It may be observed, however, that organized associations of citizens requiring compliance with their wishes too much resemble the recommendations of Athens to her allies, supported by an armed and powerful fleet.

而且一州公民和另一州公民的政治權利區(qū)別分明，不會有任何誤解的可能。?任何州的公民都同時享有作為本州公民和美國公民所有的權利，但是一個人在任何情況下都不能同時成為兩個州的公民，同樣因此，除他自己所在的州之外，他無權干涉其他州的保留權力。他確實可以向其他州的公民就管理問題提出一些建議，其提議的具體形式由他個人視情況合適而自行決定。也可以觀察到，有些公民團體強迫別人接受他們的意愿，像極了以前雅典人憑借其強大的武裝艦隊威脅其盟友接受自己建議的樣子。

It was, indeed, to the ambition of the leading States of Greece to control the domestic concerns of the others that the destruction of that celebrated Confederacy, and subsequently of all its members, is mainly to be attributed, and it is owing to the absence of that spirit that the Helvetic Confederacy has for so many years been preserved. Never has there been seen in the institutions of the separate members of any confederacy more elements of discord. In the principles and forms of government and religion, as well as in the circumstances of the several Cantons, so marked a discrepancy was observable as to promise anything but harmony in their intercourse or permanency in their alliance, and yet for ages neither has been interrupted. Content with the positive benefits which their union produced, with the independence and safety from foreign aggression which it secured, these sagacious people respected the institutions of each other, however repugnant to their own principles and prejudices.

其實，這個著名的邦聯(lián)(譯者注:指伯羅奔尼撒戰(zhàn)爭中雅典領導的提洛同盟)及其所有成員國之所以最終會毀滅，就是因為他們試圖領導所有希臘國家，掌管其他國家國內事務的野心，赫爾維蒂聯(lián)邦(譯者注:指瑞士)沒有這種野心，因此得以常年不倒，存在至今。赫爾維蒂聯(lián)邦中的各成員從來沒有因制度問題出現(xiàn)過什么爭端。你可以觀察到這個聯(lián)邦中各州的政府形式、宗教信仰有明顯的差異，看似這個聯(lián)邦不可能和睦來往、長期存在，然而這么長時間過去了，赫爾維蒂聯(lián)邦依舊相處和睦。因為這些聰明的人民對聯(lián)邦帶來的利益十分滿意，聯(lián)邦也能確保各州安全，不受外國侵略，他們不強加自己的原則，拋下自己的偏見，尊重彼此的制度。

Our Confederacy, fellow-citizens, can only be preserved by the same forbearance. Our citizens must be content with the exercise of the powers with which the Constitution clothes them. The attempt of those of one State to control the domestic institutions of another can only result in feelings of distrust and jealousy, the certain harbingers of disunion, violence, and civil war, and the ultimate destruction of our free institutions. Our Confederacy is perfectly illustrated by the terms and principles governing a common copartnership. There is a fund of power to be exercised under the direction of the joint councils of the allied members, but that which has been reserved by the individual members is intangible by the common Government or the individual members composing it. To attempt it finds no support in the principles of our Constitution.

同胞們，我們的聯(lián)邦也只能通過這種寬容精神來維系。我國公民必須對憲法賦予自己的權力感到知足。如果一州人民試圖操控其他州的制度，只會引起猜疑和敵視，也勢必導致國家出現(xiàn)分裂、暴動、內戰(zhàn)的征兆，最終摧毀我們的自由制度。共同協(xié)作的條款和原則，在我國得到了完美體現(xiàn)。聯(lián)邦各州可以在聯(lián)邦政府共同會議的指導下行使部分權力，但是各州自行保留的權力，是聯(lián)邦政府和其他州都不可侵犯的。否則就違反了憲法原則。

It should be our constant and earnest endeavor mutually to cultivate a spirit of concord and harmony among the various parts of our Confederacy. Experience has abundantly taught us that the agitation by citizens of one part of the Union of a subject not confided to the General Government, but exclusively under the guardianship of the local authorities, is productive of no other consequences than bitterness, alienation, discord, and injury to the very cause which is intended to be advanced. Of all the great interests which appertain to our country, that of union——cordial, confiding, fraternal union——is by far the most important, since it is the only true and sure guaranty of all others.

我們要一直熱切地共同努力，在各州之間培養(yǎng)這種和諧妥協(xié)的精神。歷史已經充分證明，部分公民煽動大家不要信任聯(lián)邦政府，只完全接受當地政府的監(jiān)護，這種行為只會給我們的事業(yè)造成痛苦、隔閡、紛爭的傷害。團結——友好和睦、相互信任、如兄弟一般的團結才是我國所有利益中最重要的一環(huán)，因為它是我國利益中，唯一真誠可靠的保險。

聲明：本人僅按照原文翻譯內容，演講內容不代表本人觀點。此專欄僅供歷史和英語交流學習使用，任何讀者皆可引用本人的譯本。

希望來學習英語的觀眾明白：我覺得這些專欄的主要精華在于英語原文，而并非我的譯本，我的譯本很大程度上只是供來學習歷史的觀眾使用的。本人的英語水平一般，翻譯得并不會多么精彩，只能在你看不懂時來幫助你了解這些演講內容最基本的意思，而且翻譯時難免會出現(xiàn)差錯，切勿直接完全以我的譯本為標準。如發(fā)現(xiàn)有翻譯錯誤或者歧義內容，歡迎指正。

希望來學習歷史的觀眾明白：任何歷史人物都有一定的局限性，隨著時代發(fā)展，很多觀點看法可能已經不再適用今天的世界，西方的觀點也不一定適用于我們。通過了解這些演講，僅可給我們提供一個更全面了解過去和世界的渠道。我們可以從優(yōu)秀的歷史、當代人物身上學到很多，但是請保持獨立思考，理性看待演講內容，切勿全信或將其奉為真理。?