^°-;^. ^^^^'^^ ,0^ -t*.. '^^ • • ^ • i ' « ^°-;^ • • o ' *y '^ ■•lo. V .1*»- /<>• SPEECH vl!____--'-»- OF HON. R. S. BALDWIN. OF CONNECTICUT, IN FAVOR OF THE ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA INTO THE UNION, AND ON THE TERRITORIAL BILLS, AND THE BILL IN RELATION TO FU- GITIVE SLAVES, IN CONNECTION WITH MR.. BELL'S COMPROMISE RESOLUTIONS. IN SENATE OP THE UNITED STATES, MARCH 27 AND APRIL 3, 1850, WASHINGTON: rPJVTED AT THE COKCKESSION&.I4 GLOB' OFriCI. 1850. ^ '> % % * \ ,\\ THE TERUITORIAL QUESTION. The Senatfi having under consideration the ?esolutions of Mr. Bell, of Tennessee, and the motion of Mr. Foote to refer them to a Select Commiitfe of Thirteen, Mr. BALDWIN said: To that motion, Mr. President, an amendment was offered by myself on a former occasion, which was .subsequently modified at the suggestion of tlie Senator from Missouri, [Mr. Benton,] to exclude from the con- sideration of the committee the subject-matter of ihe message of the President transmitting the con- stitution of California, and recommending her ad- mission into the Union. It is upon that motion Shat 1 propo.se to address the Senate, availing my- self of the opportunity it affords me to express my Tiews somewhat at large upon other questions connected with the proposition and with the reso- lutions introduced by the Senator from Tennessee, [Mr. Bell.] I have listened, Mr. President, with deep inter- est to the discussions in theSenate on the questions presented by the message of the President, and the reyolutiona of the distinguished Senators from Kentucky and Tennessee. In the general tone and spirit wliich have characterized tlie debate, I have seen much to admire and something to regret. It has been my endeavor to keep my own mind free from any undue excitement, with a determina- tion, in any legislative act which 1 may be called upon to perform, to be governed by tiie spirit of ihe Constitution and of t!ie distinguished men who coopevatetl in i's formation and adoption. That sacred instrument speaks in no sectional language. The voices of the whole American people are there united in harmonious concord, proclaiming union, justice, liberll^, domestic tranquillity, and the gen- eral w«a!, tc be its glorious purposes. It was made and adopted in a spirit of liberal indulgence to conflicting interests and spntiments, tolerating, no doubt, some, iiigiitutions then regarded as tempo- rary, and some compromises which many of us" of the present dny doubtless would wish had been otherwise. Eut they are there — they are in the Constitution; and so far as my constituents are concerned, I feel myself authoriz'-d by the resolu- tions of the General Assembly of Connecticut, now lying upon your table, to say that the people of my own State are prepared to adhere to and abide by those compromises, to the letter and in the spirit of the same. Such, sir, are the instructions, such is the sol- emn declRration of the General Assembly of t,he State of Connecticut, passed by a nearly unani- mous vote of both Houoes of the legislature. But they have also instructed their Senators, and requested their representatives in Congress, to op- pose, in all constitutional ways, any and every new measure of compromise by which any pcr- ien of our free territory may be given up to the encroachments of slavery, or by which the people of the United States may be made responsible for its introduction or continuance. These instruc- tions are in accordance with my own deliberate judgment. It will, therefore, afford me great pleasure to conform to them. I wish, however, not to be understood as concurring in sentiment with the disiinguisiied Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Cass,] whom I do not now see in his seat, and with^iy friend from Illinois, [Mr. Douglas,] who have, addressed the Senate on the subject of instructions. I should never be willing, standing here as an American Senator, to record my vote for any measure contrary to the dictates of my own judgment, enlightened by the deliberations of this body, even though I were positively instructed to do so by the Legislature of my State. If t be- lieved in this doctrine of instructions — if I believed that it was improper for a Senator to avail himself of the position in which his constituents had placed him, to vote against their wishes as ex- pressed in their resolutions — I should feel myself bound to render something more than a nominal obedience to their requisitions. I should not feel at liberty to avail myself of that position in the debate.^ of this body to neutralize my own votes by endeavoring to influence the votes of others against it. I would keep ihe word of promise fully, if I felt myself bound by it at all. The resolutions now befoie the Senate, offered with the best of motives by my distinguished friend from Tennessee, and the proposition to re- fer tliose resolutions to a committee composed of gentlemen from the North and from the South, who are to deliberate with a view of making some compromise of sectional interest, and bringing be- fore the body, in the form either of one act or of several acts, the results of their deliberations, do not commend themselves to my judgment. The * question of California, presented with the message of the President, ought not, in my opinion, lo be connected with any other question whatever. It stands upon its own foundation. If the people of California are entitled to be admitted into this Union, they have a right to have that question considered by itself. They are here claiming a right — a right stipulated by treat}- — a right which we are pledged, as they insist, to accord to them. If they are correct in this o[)jtuoi!i, certaiitly it is but fair and just that the question which they have presented should not be embarrassed by connection with any other proposition. The proposition before the Sr nate, and the res- olutions of the distinguished Senator from Tennes- see also, assume that these are questions which are to be decided with leference to nortliern and south'- ern interests, as if those interests were antagonistic to each other. In my view, this is an unsound, and, in its tendency, an unconstitutional mode of legislation. It tends to produce and to encourage sectional claims and sectional combinations, which it was the desire, the anxious desire, of the fiamers of the Ccnstitution to prevent. The Constitution regards this nation as one people. It knows no North or South, or East or West. It regards us as one. In the celebrated proclamation of Presi- dent Jackson, of 1832 — a measure, which, in my judgment, reflected more honor, more credit, upon the reputation of that distinguished individual, Ihan any other act of his public lile— he says: " Tho tf rms used in itfj construction sli.-,w it to be a Gov- ernment in wliicli lli« people ol all the States collectively are ref»ie.--('ntt'(i — a Government vvliicli operates directly upon the people individually, and not on tlie Slates." It has provided in itself all the securities which were deemed necessary or proper for a fair ex- pression of the will of the nation upon every ques- tion of public interest. It sedulously guards against all combinations of sectional interest, as distinct from the general welfare. It confers no power to make sectional compacts, or arrangements, for any purpose, much less for purposes of that descrip- tion, to bind the legislation of a future Congress, or to prevent, in any legitimate form, the expres- sion of the popular will. Sir, we all represent one country, and, in this sense, one constituency. And while .staniUng herein this body, our primary allegiance is, in my judgment, due to that country •which in all its parts is here represented; whose requirements of us are embodied in that constitu- tional Government we have all sworn to support. We are not legislating for the'States of .which this Union is composed. We are legislating for the people; and not for the people as represented by their particular States, but for the people of the United Slates. As these resolutions, then, assume, contrary to what 1 regard as the just theory of the Constitution, and of the tramers of that instru- ment, that we are here as a divided people, sec- tionaily divided, having sectional interests which it is proper for us as legislators to compromise, I am opposed to any .'such committee. But, sir, in regard to the State of California, now applying fur ad mi.ssion into the Union. I am not aware liow that can be regarded as a sectional question between the North and the South. I am not aware of any peculiar interests which my con- stituents, as such, have in the decision of that question, other than the people of any other por- tion of tills country. I am not aware that the in- troduction of the Senators and Reprcsetitatives from Califori ia, to cooperate with us in our legis- lation here, will be any more likely to conduce to the promotion of the interests of my constituents than to the interests of those of any other portion of the country. It is net, thereftue, upon that ground that 1 sustain their claims to admission. It is well known to members of this body, who were here during the prosecution of the Mexican war, thai 1 wus opposed to the war. I regarded it as a war of conquest, and as irreconcilable, on that ground, to the principles of free government, upon which our national institutions are based. I voted with the Senator from North Carolina, [Mr. Badger,] who addressed the Senate the other day, against the acquisition of all this territory, antl against the stipulations for the admission of any of the territories acquired into the Union aa States. Sir, the cession jvas made ; the treaty was ratified. The dominion of the Mexican territory was transferred to the United States. What was then their condition? California had, as a part of the Mexican Republic, a territorial government of its own — laws of its own — for the regulation of its municipal concerns distinct from those of the Mexican Republic. The general sys- tem of law was the same in both. Under that Government, and under the laws of its enactment, or the laws enacted for it by the Republic of Mex- ico, the inhabitants of California enjoyed their lib- erty, their property, and their civil rights. Under those laws they held them at the time of the ces- sion. What then was our stipulation in regard to them? By the ninth article of the treaty with Mexico, it is provided that, " The Mexicans who, in the territories aforesaid, shall not preserve the character of citizens of the Me.xican Re- puhlic, coiiformahly with what is stipulated in the preceding article, shall be incorporated into ilie Union of the United States, and admitted at the proper time (to be judged of by tlie Congress of the United .State-!) to tlie enjoyment of all the rijilits of eitizens of ih'i United Stales, recording to the I rinciples of the Constitution, and in the mr-au tinie shall he maintained and protected in tlie free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and si cured in the free exercise of their relii^ioii without restriction." Their liberty and their property, in the mean time, until in the judgment of Congress the proper period should arrive for their incorporatiosi into the Union as States, were stipulated and guaran- tied to them by the treaty. What was the liberty thus guarantied in the mean time to the Mexican inhabitants of California? Not their political lib- erty, of course, because they v/eie not in a condi- tion at that time to be admitted into this Union; but their civil liberty — a right to be protected by just and expedient laws, properly administered. I'his was the guarantee. Their property was that which they held under those laws. Ilere, then, was a solemn duty assumed by the people of Jhe Uniied States by this treaty, binding them, until the people of Calh^'ornia should be in a conditioH to be incorporated into the Union, to give them full protection, by law, for their liberty, their property, and their civil rights. t| That treaty, of course, became the supreme law of the land; and it became obligatory upon the Pres- ident of the United States, as the Executive of this nation, to see that its requirements were duly exe- cuted, as it is our duty now to sfc that the other stipulations of that treaty are faithfully fulfilled. What were those laws that v/ere thus to lie admin- istered for their protection ! They were of neces- sity, either the laws which, at the time of the treaty, existed and regulated the property and the social relations of the people, or they were laws to be substituted for them by the Government to which dominion was transferred. Ti;ey could emanate from no other authority. If, then, the then existing Mexican and departmental laws were not abrogated by new enactments, the treaty con- tinued them in force just as much as if they had been reenacted. The siipulationa for the proteo- tion of liberty and property cpiild not otherwise be fulfilled. There was no necessity for any act of Con^rp?^^, such as v. ::3 passed upon the transfer of Florida, to continue in force the exist- ing laws. The treaty necessarily, in the fulfillment of it.^3 own atipulaiion for the protection of the rights which the people of the United States had assumed the obligation to protect, continued those laws in force as fully as they could have been con- tinued by any enactment whatever. California became thereby, in fact, a territorial government or department of the United States, having its own system of laws, though not, perhaps, the power of enacting new ones, bat having a system of laws which were continued in operation, and ad- ministered by officers existing in that territory, formerly as a territory of the Mexican republic, but now as a territory of the United States. These laws were not ooly not abrogated, but they were, in fact, expressly recognized by Congress; for, by a joint resolution passed on the 2d of March last, the Congress of the United States invited emigration to the Territories of California, of Oregon, and of New Mexico, and directed the Secreta.ry of War to furnish to the emigrants who might apply for them, arms and ammunition, at cost, for their protection. What made California and New Mexico, regions boidering upon each other, separate territories in the opinion of those by whom this taw was enacted ? They could be separate only, because they were governed by dis- tinct systems of local administration — distinct sys- tems of law for the protection of the civil rights and the property of the inhabitants. If the ces- sion which was made by the extension of the boundary of the United States, so as to compre- hend all this rfgion, obliterated the territoijjpil landmark.^, destroyed the territorial government, why, sir, they could not have been spoken of and treated by Congress as distinct tetri- toriee, as they were. It is not and cannot be claimed that Congress was bound to continue in force all the laws then existing for the govern- ment of the territories. They might be amended j and improved; but the treaty guarantied that Congress should do all that was neces.^ary, either ; by the adoption of the preexisting laws, or by the enactment of others, to secure the people of ; those territories in the enjoyment of their liberty I and properly. Weil, sir, "the benefit of this guar- } antee, although made to the Mexican inhabitanis, i necessarily accrued to all v/ho, by the invitation of Congress, chose to amigrate, and make California a habitation and a hoivie. Now, there can be but one system of local legislation for all the inhabit- | ants. Wiiether, therefore, the inhabitants ofj California wece the original Mexican iiihabitants, j or whether they were the emigranis introduced in Eursuance of our invitation. Congress was equally ound to afford them a system of law adequate to their protection. Mr. YULEE, (interposing.) Mr. President, if the Senator Mr. BALDWIN. I should prefer not, as I do not like the practice which has become so frequent of late in the Senate, unless I have made some er- roneous statement of fact which the Senator wishes to correct. Mr. YULEG. That ia precisely what I rise for — to correct a fact which seems to me material. Mr. BALDWIN. Then I will yield the floor. Mr. Y'ULEE. The Senator stated, in relation to Florida, that the Spanish laws were recognized by an act of Cotigress as continuing in force upon the transfer of that country to the jurisdiction of the United States. I rise for the purpose of cor- recting the Senator upon that point of fact. The Senator is entirely mistaken in the statement which he makes. On the contrary, the only code of laws which was recognized as having force in Florida after possession was taken by General Jackson was the code of laws adopted and issued by General Jackson, under authority of a joint resolution of Congress, which empo.vered the President of the United States to appoint an offi- cer to receive possession of Florida, and to hold it in possession, conferring upon that officer all civil, judicial, and legislative functions which had been previously exercised by Spanish officers. General Jackson, under that authority, recognized such laws as he deemed suitable for the territory, and enacted other law.s himself; and under these laws the people of Florida were governed until the territorial act was passed. The act to which the Senator refers had reference to the laws adopted and promulgated by General Jackson, and not to the Spanish laws previously in existence. I make the correction now, because 1 ob.-^erve that the same error has been made in the other House, and perhaps in this on a previous occasion. Mr. BALDWIN resumed. It ia perfectly im- material, as far as regards my own argument, what system of laws had been adopted in relation to Florida. I introduced it incidentally, for the purpose of showing that, in my judgment, if there was a treaty binding this Government to protect the citizens in their liberty and their property, and this Government had neither enacted nor author- ized the enactment of any other sysem of laws than that which then existed, and under which the inhabitants were protected in their civil rights, it necessarily fo'lows that thoi^e laws must be con- tinued; for, otherwise, the treaty obligations could not be fulfilled. Had California continued as it was, composed of a few sparse settlements, the laws in force at the time of the cession would have been ample for their protection. Their interests were small; their transactions with each other were comparatively few; their temptations to crime were slight; but, under our authority, by our invitation, j a vast influx of population from all ports of the I world, have migrated to California. Ships from j Europe and Asia and Western America, as well as from our own coast, have entered their magnifi- I cent harbors, richly laden with the products of i every climate. Mines of gold of unsurpassed I richness have allured adventurers of every descrip- I tion, and given a new impulse to labor in all the j departments of industry. Towns and cities have I arisen among them, as by magic; thousands of I people are clustered together, from different na- ! tioiis, of dissimilar habits, differing m their usages, II and the systems of law to which they had been I accustomed in the places from which they migra- }' ted — differing not merely from those of the Mexi- \\ can inhabitants but of each other. It is perfectly ji obvious then, sir, that the pysi'-m of law, and the || administration which would have yielded compe- |i tent protection to the Mexicans inhabiting this } territory at the time of the treaty, would now be j totally inadequate to the exigencies of society. It l! is true, sir, that there is there a rery large propor- tion from the best population of this country. It is mingled with a population from other regions requiring tlie reslraiiit of severer lav/s than any that have heretofore existed there. We ali know that, in a remote country like that, thus newly settled by those who are stran«;ers! to each other, who come with habits thus dissimilar, the ordinary restraints of society, which stand in the place of law in older countries, have but a feeble hold upon the population. What, then, was the necessary result.' That liberty and property were in a great measure unprotected. Crimes were committed , und there wtre no adequate tribunals to try and f)unish the offender. Contracts were made and )roken, and there were none to administer ju&tice. Rights of property were violated with impunity. Who was responsible for all this? The old Mex- ican laws, the old departmental officers, were entirely inadequate to the purposes for which Gov- ernment was now needed. What, then, should be done.' They appealed to Congress. Congress, representing the supreme power of this Govern- ment, to whose dominion they had been trans- ferred by Mexico, refused to interfere — refused to aid them with a system of laws adequate to the circumstances in which they were jilaced. Even the writ of habeas corpus and tlie right of trial by jury were vainly attempted in this body, at the last session, to be conferred upon this distant peo- ple. Mexico had relinquished her dominion to a power that refused to exercise it efficiently for their protection. The greater portion of the peo- ple were our own citizens, our own kindred, our sons. What could they do? What was the President, bound as he was by the duties of his office to see that the stipulations of this treaty were properly fulfilled, required to do? Was he to fold his arms quietly, and leave these people unprotected, without an eflbvt to secure to them the fulfillment of the stipulations of the treaty? Was it the duty of the people of the territory to remain unprotected by the neglect of Congress ? or was it their rijrht, as American citizens, inher- iting as their birthright the great principles of liberty, for which their fathers had contended through the war of the Revolution, to .seek pro- tection for themselves by the establishment of a government wliieh Congres.-? had refused to pro- vide for them? Were they not right when, under these circiwnstances, they ap]>lied to the only representative of the sovereign power of this Government who was among them? and was he not bound to yield his assent, as he did, to their request? It was their right. Allegiance and pro- tection are reciprocal duties. It was our duty, it was the duty of our public officers, of our Exec- utive, to see that those people were provided with a government adequate to their protection. Mr. BORLAND, (interposing.) Mr. Presi- dent, will the Senator jiermit me to ask him a single question ? — to ask him if he did not liimself refuse to vote for giving a govermnent to Califor- nia.' — if he did not refuse to vote for a measure which he sayf was indispensably necessary ? Mr. BALDWIN. The question, Mr. Presi- dent, as regards my own vote at the last session of Congress, is entirely irrelevant to the proposi- tion I am now maintaining. I did vote, «ir, against one of the propositions to give to this peo- ple a government, because I thought that, it was not such a goverumenl as they ought to have — not such a government as the obligations of good faith required us to give them. When this territory was about to be ceded to the United States, or rather during the negotiations with the Mexican Government, her commisaioners expressed an earnest desire that the people of the territories which were ceded might be protected against the introdiiction of slavery there. I voted at the last session of Congress agaiuitt the proposi- tion for giving to ihis people liie government which was then proposed, because I was unwilling that the existing jaws of Mexi(!o, which prohibited slavery, should be abolished by Congress. I was unwilling that any territorial government should be formed that did not contain a provision to secure them that ])rotection which they h«d desired so earnestly to make a condition of the cession. But,, sir, I myself introduced to the consideration of thia body a proposition to extend to tliia people the benefits of their existing laws, and to add to them the privilege of the trial by jury and the writ of habeas corpus; a writ to which every American citizen ought, in my judgment, to be entitled. No Government, sir, can arquiie dominion, and refuse to exercise it for the proterlion of a peofile situated like these, without giving to that [leonle the right to provide for their own protection. You may call it revolution, sir, or by any othernamc; but it has; its origin and its defence in natural right. It rests on the principle upon which all free government is based — upon the inherent right of every man and of every community to provide for tiieir own preser- vation. This people, thus driven by necessity to the form- ation of a government, have shown, by the wis- dom which distinguished the action of their con- ven^on, their capacity for seif-governraent. ThiSj sir,*viil not be denied by any one who has read the proceedings of that body. And if they have proved tkis, they iiave proved a right to come herCj as they have done, and ask of us to say, in the ex- ercise of an enlightened judgment, whether the proper time has not arrived for their admission into the Union as orje of the States: and if so, to re- quire us to fulfill the obligations of the treaty and the assurances thai were given by Mr. Buchanan and by the American Commis.^ioners to the Mexi- can Government after the ratification of the treaty by the Senate. What were those assurances? Mr. Buchanan, in commenting on the ninth article of the treaty as altered by the Senate, in ins Ittter ad- dressed to the Minister of Foreign Relations of the Mexican Government, on the iSih March, 1848,. said: " Congress, under all llie eirciimstance>-, and ander the treaties, are the sole ju(1jj;es of Ihii* prii|»;r (line, bec.iuse tliey, and they alone, lUKlcr liie Ferlcral Constitution, bave power to admit new States into the Union. That they will always exercise this power as soon as the condition of the inhahilants of any acquired territorj-niay rfiider it proper, cannot be doubted. By this inrnnn the Federtt! Tfeasury can alone he relieved from the expense of supporting terri- torial governments. Besideg, Coiigres.-- will never turn a deaf tar to a pi'ople anxious to enjoy the privilege of selt- goveniment. Their desire to Ix^conie one of the Slates olf this Union will be granted Uie moment it ran he doua with safety. " Thi.^, ."^ir, was what the Mexican Government were told, after the Senate had made their alter- ations in the ninth article in the treaty, was the true construction of the language they had intro- duced. It was after the reception of this letter, giving the construction of our own Government 7 in regard to this nnd other alterations that were made, that the Mexicsn Government acted in the ratification of the treaty. Are we not, then, bound by it? It has been said that they have done a revolu- tionary act in the formation of their Government, Why, sir, they have done no act against the sov- ereignty of thia Government. They have not op- posed our dominion; they have not set up for themselves an independent government. What they have done, they have done with the cooper- ation of the only representative of our Government on the spot, who knew and felt the necessities of that people, and which, in his judgment, required them to act precisely as they did act. Whatever they have done, they have done in acknowledg- ment of our right to the exercise of dominion, and in pursuance of their desire to avail themselves of the provisions of treaty by which they were enti- tled to become incorporated intaour Union, And, sir, if they had said nothing of this kind, they would only have followed the examples set them by the ancestors of many of them more than two hundred years ago. The colonists of Connecticut met in January, 1639 — finding themselves out of the limits of Massachusetts, and of every other jurisdiction — and formed a plan of government, under which they agreed to live — a system of gov- ernment which, with few exceptions, in all. its great principles for the security of liberty and hu- man rights — for the advancement of education — for the promotion of all the objects of a wise and good government — remained substantially the gov- ernment of that St-ate for a period of nearly two hun- dred yep.rs. Thatgovernment was thus formed by about eight hundred individuals, who bad come to that remote region to form a settlement, without tj|e consent of the British crown, without a charfLT, and v/ith no title to the land except such as they j fairly purchased from the aboriginal inhabitants. It remains a proud monument of their wiadoni, and furnishes enduring evidence of their recogni- \ tion and adoption, at that early period, of the I great principles of human liberty. So the colony i of New Haven, then a sepsirate colony, having no j connection with Connecticut, but which afterward ' united with it under the charter of Charles the ! Second — they, too, under the auspices of their j distinguished leaders, John Davenport and Gov- j ernor Eaton, at the head of a colony of emigrants from the city of London, men of intelligence, of j education, and of sound judgment, formed a con- stitution for themselves, under which they lived in security and happiness. , The question, then, for Congress to decide is, not whether it is strictly regular for California to form a constitution and demand admission, as a ! legal right, into this Union — a right perfect and absolute — it is whether, when they have framed a constitution and applied to Congress, and when we concede that in substance the casus fcedsris has arisen, whether under these circumstances, we will not receive them, although there may have been some irregularity in their incipient proceedings; whether we will not overlook that iiregularity in the case of California, as we have done in other cases, and admit them to a full participation of our rights? If we find that the sentiments of the peo- ple have been fairly expressed, v/hy have they not the same claim that the people of Arkansas, of Michigan, or of Tennessee even, presented, when they applied respe'itively for admission Into the Union. The people of these States had , it is true, been under a territorial government differ/?rit froin the fterritorial government which existed in Cali- fornia, but no more a territorial government, than that which was continued in existence by theefFeci of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The exigen-= cies which, in the opinion of Congress, entitled those people to admission had arisen. The terri- torial government, in permitting the forrrtation of the constitution, had been guilty, in some sense, of the usurpation of a power that strictly belongs to Congress; but it was waived, as the Senator from Maine [Mr. Hamlin] has shown in his speech. Forms, sir, have rarely, in the history of our territorial governments applying for admis- sion as States, been rigidly adhered to. V7hy, sir, what right had the convention of 1787, which franaed the Constitution under which we now livCf to destroy tlie old articles of confederation, and present to the people a constitutional government for their adoption f Their powers were limited to the amendment of the articles of confederation. Bat, sir, they saw that the exigency had ariseri when this peojde required something more — that a government should be estalilished — and they as- sumed the reai>onsibility of framing and presenting to the people a constitution. Mr. Madison, in speaking of this in the Federalist, says: " T'ney must liave recollpcied tliat, in at! great changes of est.iblislied gouernmeiUs, forms ought to give way to sub- stance ; it is essential lliat sucti clianges stionld be instituted tjy some informal and uaaiitliorized propositions." The declaration of independence, too, was not an act competent to the colonial legislatures; it was an act of original inherent sovereignty by the peo- ple themselves, in whose name they imdertook to i act and to declare these United States to be one people. But if the act of California were to be regarded even as a revolutionary measure, and not merely an irregular exercise of their right under the treaty, by a people desirous of cotning into the Union, and enjoying the rights and protection stipulated by the treaty, we should all be ready to admit that it h much less obnoxious to censure than a revolutionary act by an old State with a view to di.sunion and all the disastrous conse- quences that would follow. This people have done no act in disregard of our authority or in denial of our right to dominion over them. Ssein^- the impossibility of our con- ferring upon them a government .«!uch as was required by their wants, "they formed a government for themselves, of vjhich they ask our sanction and approval. Tliey call our attention to their population, now probably exceeding one hundred and twenty thousand, and daily increasing with unexampled rapidity; to their capacity for free- dom; to their republican constitution; and the earnest desire of the people to be admitted to the enjoyment of the rights and privileges to which they claim to be entitled under the treaty.. If then, Mr. President, the people of California are here under a claim of right; if they have a right to call upon Congress to "judge," in the language of the treaty, of the «' proper time" for their admission; if they have exhibited themselves before us in such a light that, in the exercise of an honest judgment, we' are constrained to say, they are entitled to sidmission; what, I ask, has the North, what has the South, what has any eec- tional interest to do with its decision? Why should they be mixed up with our coiiroversy in regard tojocal questions not afFet-tin^ themselves? The.^reat question which lias agitated us in re;r«fd to other territories, they have settled, rightfully settled, for themselves. Then, why is this intro- duced as one of the elements of compromise, by which conflictiiiy; opinions or conflicting interests are to be adjusted by a committee chosen with reference to sectional interests? If they have a right to be here, if ihey have a right to be heard, if they have a ris^ht to claim admis- sion, because the " proper time" in the judgtnent of Congress has arrived, they have a right to come here, standin', united, and per.-severing opposition of ah peraon^' who claim to bu the friends ofliuriian liberty." There was another resolution of similar import, which I will not read at thi-s time. Assuming it to be the true construction of the Constitution, as in my judgment it is, that foreign territoriea can be an- 9 rexed by the ireaty-making power alone, it would follow that the joint resolution for the annexation of Texas was simply void. If so, I am not pre- pared to say ihnt the acquiescence of the people of the United S;ate3 in the uni(;n of Texas, has any other f (feet I han to place Jier, by reason of that acquiescence, and not by reason of the joint reso- lution, on the footing of the other States in the Union. In the debate on the British commercial conven- tion, in 1816, the distinijuished Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Calhoun] stated his opinion tn be, that whatever could be done by the treaty-making power could not be done by law. The Supreme Court of the United States have decided that the treaty-makinof power is competent to acquire for- eign territory, and ail the practice of this Govern- ment anterior to the annexation of Texas was in conformity with that decision of the court. No territory had been acquired from a foreign Gov- erjiment except by the action of the treaty-making tower. The power to admit new States into the Fnion is a distinct power, applying only to the territories of the United States — a power to be ex- ercised t ffeciually only when a new State is formed and ready for admission. The Constitution of the United State.^ declares that "no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any Other State;" not that this may be done by the consent of Consress. "New States may be ad * mittid by Congress into this Union; but no new •Stale shall be formed or erected within the juris- * diction of any other State; nor any State Ise formed * by the junction of two or more Stales or parts of •States, without the consent of the Icgislatureii of ' the States concerned as well as of Congress. ^| But the clause in the Constitution prohibiting the formation of any new State within the jurisdiction of any other State has no qualification whatever. Congress cannot now authorize the formation of a new State within the jurisdiction of Texas. A new State, when formed, can, in the view of the Constitution, have no relation to any other State, but only to the Union. Texas, tiien, must first cede her jurisdiction, divide her debt, apportion her domain, witiidraw herself into reduced limits, and leave out of her jurisdiction entirely the territory which it is claimed shall be admitted into the Union as a new State, before Congress can, in pursuance of the Constitution, authorise its form- ation. When Maine came into the Union there was ;-. preexisting law, passed by Mas^•achusetts, author- izing her to form a State indtpendenily of Massa- chusetts. And so it was when Kentucky came into the Union by the cession of her territory by Virginia. Has Texas ever offered to do this? Ha.s Texas ever manifested a desire to embrace the condition annexed to the joint resolution ? Have " the South" independently of Texas — the undefined "South," which has been represented by so many Senators upon this floor — has she a right to ins'.ht that Texas shall do this, or shall be permitted to do it, for the purpose of restoring some fancied equilibrium by the introdu^^iion of new Senators into this body? Is California to wait untd some new rotlen-borovgh system can be brought into existence for such a purpose ? Whether any future Congress will be bound to admit any new States withm the present territory of Texae, may well be left to them to decide when Texas shad consent to dismemberment. An act of future legislation will then be required, what- ever we may now resolve. It is a grave question which I do not consider it necessary for anyof ua now to undertake definitely to decide. Some fu- ture Congress may be obliged to determine it It is enough for us to know — " Nov nostru7n tnntas cawponere lites." When Texas, in December, 1845, havirg as- sented to the conditions in the joint resolution and disrobed herself of her sovereignty, offered herself for admission, fouiteen Senators in this body re- corded their votes against her, comprising, if 1 re- collect aright, all of the Whig members, with the exception of four, including the honorable Senator from Georgia, [Mr. Berrien,] who felt themselves bound by the pledge made by the joint resolution and accepted by Texas, and voted for her admis- sion. Tne fourteen Whig Senators who voted against it acted in accordance with the protest of Massachusetts, which was tiien presented by her SenatL'rs. Suppose, Mr. President, that the objection was not to the joint resolution annexing Texas, but to some of the conditions, as nncon Uitutional. .Sup- pose there had beeti a condition, offering to Texas, if she would come into the Union, the privilege of being entitled to four Senators, or that she might keep a navy in time of peace; and Texas had con- sented to that joint resolution, and offered hcr.self for admission; would it liave been binding upon this Government? Would the faith of the Gov- ernment have been pledged ? Texas, of course, knew when she was negotiating for admission into this Union, what were the rights and obligations the enjoyment ot' which she was seeking to acquire. She had perfect knowledge of the Constitution of the United States. Without de.signing to express myself any definite opinion on the question which I have no right now to decide, 1 protest against its being sent to a committee of compro- nii.^e, that may lead to an imputation of bad faith, if, wiien they present some other measure which I may feel disposed to sustain, 1 should be unwill- ing to reassert in the language of these reRolution."?, the obligations of that pledge. Suppose that Can- ada should, in the course of some few yerrs, be considered ripe for admission into the Union, and by a majority of one vote a joint resolution should pass admitting her, and authorizing her territory to be cut up from time to time into tenor twelve new Stntes, to affect or change some sup- posed equilibrium of power: are the South — is this body — now prepared to say iii;ii it would be in the power of any one Congress — a Congress chosen for no such purpose — if by any means a majority of a single one could be secured, to bind so essentially the policy of this Government for any or all future Congresses ? This is a grave question — one which deserves mature con.^idera- tion. When the lime shall come, when Texas will be ready to make application to subdivide herself in the manner proposed, otiicrmen will be here to occupy our places — men who will claim the right to act and judge for themselves; and I have no doubt that they will judge justly and wisely. If they shall be of opinion that new States from the; territory of Texas are entitled to admission — if, upon the great principles which have hitherto gov= erned Congress in its administration of this power, they shall then be of opinion that the proper time 10 has arriycri for such action, they wil! no doubt do what sh.iii seem right and just, under the circum- stances which shall then surround them, unaf- fected by anythi.ig that we may now resolve. Ac- cordin.- ;^'> r.h.e spirit of tlie Cou.stitution, ou2;ht not those who ere to be called upon to exercise a [)ower of this magnitude — those who must act egislativeiy before that power can be carried into effect — to be in a condition to exercise their own free judgment, untrammelled by the legislation of ihose who have preceded them years before, and who, under less favorable circumstances, may have endeavired to bind their actions ? But, sir, ihis is a question that no State but Texas can rai?.e. What has the South to do with it? Texas has done nothing to manifest her desire to have it taken into consideration now. She re- tains the wholeof her jurisdiction still, and, instead of curtailing, she is seeking to enlarge it, by swal- lowing up the greater part of New Mexico. When she does cede, the question will then wise, not with Texas, but with the new State to be created out of the territory of which Texas shall waive her right of jurisdiction. It v/ill be presented on its own merits, and will be much more likely to be decided justly then than in a period of excitement like the present. !t appears to me that we had better address ourselves to the duties of Ifgislation which call for our action, avoiding what may re- produce the excitement and agitation that attended that most disastrous event — the ainiexation of Texa.s. What right have we to interfere, even to propose to Texas to dismember lierself for the pur- pose of restoring the equilibrium of the slavehold- isig States.^ What would Virginia say if this Congress wfre to throw this apple of discord in her midst, and ask her to divide hetself into two or more States? What would any States in this Union say to ti proposal by Congress to divide up iheir territory? Would they acquiesce in it? Would they submit to it? No, sir; they would my it is time enough for Congresa to act, when Congress cat? a'..t pursuant to the Constitution upon territory beyysid the jurisdiction of any State. I trust then, Mr. Piesideut, that California is not to be connes!L(i with any quetJtion like this — is not to be called i;i>on to wait until Textis shall have taken another census to ascertain that she has population enough for another State — until Texas shall be able to arrange with other portimsa of the territory the burden of her debt, and be willing to make a voluntary offer of a daughter as in readi- ness for the uniott. California, as I have t^aid, is here upon her own right; she is here demanding the fulfillinent of a treaty stipulation. We cannot, in my judgment, ask her to stsnd by until ahy other quesiions than those which concern herself, and herself RJonc, are arranged. With regard to the other questions which have been connected with this subject, it seems to me that the only constitutional and proper mode of treating thetii, is to act upon them as they arise. The question of the extension of slavery over free territory, is a question which, in my judgment, does not admit of compromise. It invcdves a deep-seated [)rinciple. It is a question which, when thus presented, must be met, and met fairly, and decided as a question of principle, on which we may differ, to be sure; but it must be decided by the aetiot) af the constitutional organs of this Government, in the only way that their action is i contemplated by the Constitution. If tliey decide it wrong, we have a judicial tribunal for those who t'eel aggrieved by the decision. But the question is one that the people of this country will never be satisfied, in niy judgment, to see made an element of compromise, and for the very reason that it is a question of principle. I am not referring to the morality of slavery, to the evils of slavery; but I am assuming the fact to be as it is, and as we all know it to be, that a large portion of the popula- tion of these United States are, in principle, op- posed to assuming any portion of the responsibility for its extension into territory now free. The Constitution never contemplated any extension of slavery. The Constitution has nothing to do with the recogniti(>n of slavery, except as it exists in the case of persons held to labor by the laws of particular States in the Union, whom it regards as debased by their servitude to the amount of two- fifths of their personal rights, and as such, allows to be the basis of representation and taxation; and for the performance of the duty imposed in regard to fugitives from labor. The Coiistitutiott recog- nizes the fact that involuntary servitude may exist by the laws nf the States which tolerate it, ia regard to persons ov/ings!;rvice. Itcan existby the j>9vver of Congress, in my judgment — except where the Constitution, for the mere purpose of recapturing and ret uriiinga fugitive, allows it — only where Con- gress possesses despotic power. Slavery can exist under no Government that does not possess des- potic power. Man canuct be made a slave, unless some other man has by law the power to make him so — for the reason that, in the absence of human law, the natural law of equality must pre- vail, Tvhieh gives to every man, in the language of Chief justice Marshall, "the fruits of his own labor." It may creep in silently in the absence of positive enactment, and be recognized by a gen- eral usage among the people, which ultimately acquires tlie force of law; but its legality can be established only by the force of positive law. To whom, then, do these territories belong? They belong to the nation. No Stale in this Union, can, under the Constitution, acquire territory. They can neither make war, compact, nor treaty. Dominion must be exercised by the power that acquit es it. The President, as the treaty- making power, represents emphatically the tiation. The States, as such, exert no influence, except f^uch as their Senators, appointed under the Constitution, and the Repre.sentativew from the different districts in the State, are enabled to exert as members of their respective bodies. They do not act here, as under the old Confederation, as States, but by a majority, however the body may be constituted. In the exercise, then, of this dominion over the territories, there can be but one will, and that will ■ is the collective will of the people. That will can be manifested only by the legislation of Congress. The treaty-making power haviti;; the right to ac- quire territory and dominion, Congress, by the general grant of power, to make all laws v/hich shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested by the Constitu- tion in theGoverntiient of the United States, or in any department thereof, has the power of exer- cising the dominion. Congress, of course, must, unless they are restrained by some prohibitory clause, judge of the necessity or the propriety of their legislation in reference to the purposes of 11 the union, and the welfare of the inhabitants of the acquired territory, both present and prospeclive. Their legislation affects the people of the territory, , not an citizens of a State, but aa citizens of the , United States. The States to which they belonged ,| cnn.iol follow them with their laws, when they ^ have left the State to seitle in a Terntorjr 1 hey | owe no longer allegiance to the State. They are citizens of the United Si«tes, inhabitants of its Territory, and eubject alone to its laws. Other- | wise, if the StatoB wers to be regarded i!-. the gov- ; crnment of the territory; if the State laws are to ; have any force or application there, U would fol- low that there could be no supreme law of tne people, because the States being equal, the law ot every Slate would be equal to that of every other: neither could be supreme, and there would be as great a variety in the codes of law as there are States to be affected by any peculiar interests they might desire to protect. The constitution f [Mex- ico", and her lawi=i, it has been shown, prohibited slavery at the time of the annexation of these ter- ritories to the United States. That law, regulating the personal ris-hts of the inhabitants of Mexico, and their relations to each other, not being a polit- ical law entering in'o the government of the terri- tory, remaina in forco, notwithstanding the cession, until it is abrogated iiy the Government that has , succeeded to the dominion. '\ But it is said that slavery, being purely a do- ], meatic institution of the States, Congress, as the - leHslitive or'^an of the Government of the Unitea i St'ates, has no concern with it. If it be meant by this, that Congress has no concern with slavery in the States, why, it is perfectly true. Nobody claims that Congress can exercise any power over | slavery in any State. Nobody, sir, in any part j of the country, within my knowled<;e, sets up any j claim of that sort. But, if it be meant that Con- , eiess cannot therefore prohibit it, where the policy of a territory is to be regulated exclusively by Congress, I deny the proposition. Congress must exercise its dominion, in reference to the weliare of the territory, precisely in the same manner, having- reference to the great fundamental princi- ple? upon which our Government is formed, as any State Legislature is required to exercise its dominion within its own limits. Congress must judge for the inhabitants of a territory what laws it sh^ll enact for them, and what laws it shad pro- hibit them from enHcling, because Congress exer- cises the dominion. Well, if this be so, what ground is there for any State to say that Congress interferes with her rights.' Do these territories belong to the several States? I know that some of the resolutions which have been passed by the State Lp'^islatures have been passed m that form. But there is nothing in the Constitution to sanc- tion any such idea. The treaty-making power negotiates for the nation-not as the agent of the States. The territory is acquired for the Union. The constituencies of the nation are the neople, not the States. The people are equal, undoubtedly; but every citizen has not the rghi, therefore, as it is claimed, to go upon the territory, either with his properly or without his property, until Con- gress chooses to invite emigration to the territory. When the citizens do go there, they stand in the territory upon an equal platform; they are all treated alike; for all the laws within any given j^rif-diction affect the inhabitants residing in that jurisdiction alike. It has been msiPtec! '.hat, m ! the absence of any positive prohibition nc slave- ry in the territories by Congress, s a-ery can go ,! there on the ground that every '"'J^^'^^,''"' ^^^ * ' right to take whei the Constitution of rne. United ' Suu.sadmil.t.. be properly Thai deper.us upoa I the sense in which this adrnis.sion, if .here be ' such, is to be understood. If the Govf rnnient of ' the United Stntes recognizes merely the idct that ; certain persons, by the laws of certain State?, owe !i se vice.'^or are de4ed slaves by the laws cf those 1 States; and if the Government of the United Sta e« ', has assumed the obligation of giving extra temto- ' rial force to those lawafein one particular case only-thatof a wrongful escape, as it is called, from the dominion thus legally exercised over the slave-does it follow, if the master volantanly takes his slave out of the jurisdiction of the S^te in which he is thus held, that the Constitution of the United States can in that case recognize him as a slave ? Not al all. This question If ^ been re- 1 oeatedlv decided. It has been uniformly held that 1 fhat clause in the Constitution of the United State, i in re-ard to the restoration of fugitive slaves, has Ino application whatever to a slave who is taken ' voluntarily beyond the jurisdiction of the f^e ; whose laws have created the relation The law : on this subject is pfrfecily well established, not I only in Great Britain, but in this country. In / Surge's Conflict of Laws, a work of high author^ !i itv, the law is thus .;taled : i « There exists," says Burge, "a status which i9 II le-al in the country in which it is constituted, but i illeo-al in another country to which the person may 11 resSrt. In this connicl there has been an uniform- I; itv of opinion among jurists, and of decisions by judicial tribunals, in giving no effect to the satus^ i however legal it may have been in the countiy in I which the person was born, or m which he was previously domiciled, if it be not recogmzed by i' ihe law of his actual dnmicil. .This principle was adopted by the supreme conned of Mechlin as es- tablished law, in 1531. U refused to issue a war- rant to take up a person who had escaped f onn I' Spain, where he hnd been brought and legally held in slavery.' —t-'/trist Dec. ioDi. 4, 1>£C. bU. li «' By the law of France, the slaves of their co! ]j onies, immediately on their arrival in France, be I! come free." ^ , n n, -^ '■ «« In the case of Forbes vs. Cochrane, 2 B&rn i! and Cress., 463, this question is elaborately dr II cussed and settled by the English court of K. I I' « The ri -ht to slaves, (it is there said,) when toler ii « ated by law, is founded, not on the law of nature I ' but on" the law of that particular country. U is j ! < law la vwitum; and wh.n a party gets out of th il « nowe^- of his master, and gets under the protectio ' « of another power, without any wrongful act don ' ' by the party giving that protection, the right c ' the masier, which is founded on ihe municipc « law of the particular place only, does not cor « tinue The moment a foreign slave puts his to( •on our shores, he ceases to be a slave, becauE •there is no law here which sanctions his bein ' h'-ld in slavery; and the local law which held hii ' in slavery against the law of nature has lost i . force.' "—9 Eng. C L. Rej). 115. That is the principle of all the decisions ug: •his question. It. is recognized as law by the &i nreml Court of the United States. It is reco; nized ae law by Chief Juslic* Shaw, m Mas^; ehusetts, in the case of Lu'^as, which I had occasion to cite on a farmer discussion. How are the rights of the master to Ije asserted where there is no law establishing .slavery i The slitve nu\y es- cape; how is the master to recover him r Tiie slave brings the- writ of habeas corpus; by what law in force in that territory can the master declare him to be held ? Clearly, by none. In view of these principles, I am very clearly of opinion, Mr. Presi- dent, that slavery is now prohibited by the continu- jno^ Mexican law in the Territory of New Mex- ico, and in all the territory over which i' is now proposed to establish territorial fjovcrnmeiits. If 80, it may then be a.sked, Why do you claim that Congress should, in the territorial bill.-j, superadd a provision for the prohibition of slavery ? Why do an act which is unnecessary, slavery being already prohibited there? If a territorial bill is passed, and the powers of government conferred upon those who may emisjrate to the territory, and there is no restriction to prevent the establish- ment of slavery, it may go there; it may silently creep in; it may get a foothold in that way, as, it has already been remarked in the course of the debate, it lias done in almost every State where it has ultimately estal^lished itself. It is to prevent the possibility of slavery beins; established in the free territory that many are desirous to extend over it the ordinance of 1787. If a territorial governinent is established there — if laws are marie diffsring from the old Mexican la*s now in force ■ — if those Mexican laws are abrogated — why, we all know that if the climate is ad;>pted to slavery, the avowed determination which has been distinctly manifested in several of the south- ern States to introduce it at all hazards, leaves little room to doubt that it may, and ultimately will, find access there. But southern gentlemen, ill whose opinions confidence is reposed, deny that the Mexican laws prohibiting slavery are nosy in force. It is claimed that the Constitution of the United States has already found its way into the territory and established slavery there. Having already considered this legal question, I will not stop now to speak of it agiin; but if this opinion be extensively entertained by southern lawyers, unle.?s there is a distinct provision by Congress for its exclusion, can it be said that there is no danger that slavery will gpt a foothold in the Mexican territory, which is now free.' It is said that the laws of nature forbid it; and therefore it will be regarded as a wanton insult upon the feelings or the prejudices of southern gentlemen, if such a prohibition is contained in ihe territorial bill. But here again the facts are denied. It is asserted by southern gentlemen, that this territory is adapted to slave labor. It has been asserted in this body that slavery will go there if it is not prohibited. The very excitement, the Tery agitation which has prevailed in different parts of the cour;try upon tliis subject, shows that such an opinion is entertained. Is it to be tup- posed that the people of the South would become agitated and excited to such a degree as to threaten danger to the Union itself, unless there was some real interest to be affected by the quei^tion3 about which this excitement has arisen? Are we required to believe that th's southern States, who unanimously enacted the ordinance of J787, can now, at this late period, regard it as of- fenaire that that ordinance shall be applied toother territories? Can it be believed that, if there was no reason to expect that slavery would find its way into the territories, there would be any more excitement likely to grow out of the application of the ordinance in this case than in the case of Ore- gon, or of the territory north of the Missouri line? Why should there be? No new principle is now asserted. It is merely the application of an old principle, settled and well cstabliMhed, and repeat- edly enacted from the origin of the Qiivernmerjt down to the present day, to a new territory, and to a territory which, when we acquired it, was a> free from slavery as the territory of any of the free States of this Union. And, sir, as to the matter of feelin!;. As has already been said, the people of the free States, and individuals from all parts of the country who are opposed to the system of slavery, regard it as a principle which is not to be yielded; that territory v/hich is now free shall remain so; and that, there- fore, if there be any danger of its being permitted to become slaveholding territory, it ought not to become so for the want of any action of the Con- gress of the United States which it may consti- tutionally adopt to prevent it. There is noun- kind feeling in the matter. None is entertained. None whatever ia intended to be indicated. It is the same feeling applied to these territories that led to the unanimous adoption of the ordinance of 1787. If gentlemen from the South think slavery will go there if not prohibited, other gentlemen hare are authorized to assume that it will go there unles.9 it is prohibited. And if tUere be this danger, then gen'lemen from the North know perfectly well that there is but one opinion among their constituency in regard to the policy of affixing the prohibition. But, sir, I regard it as important on another ground. TexasWas annexed to this Union, — and that annexation is th3 cause of all this trouble, — with a view to sfrensthen and sustain the system of slavery in the South. There are other Mexican possessions in the vicinity of Texas of an equally enticing clmricter, anil the same spirit of cupidity for the acquisition of foreign territory that led to the annexation of Texas and the conquest of these territories, will hereafter lead to other wars, other conquests, other annexations. Mr. RUSK, (interposing.) Will the honorable Senntor allow me one single mjment? I have heard it frequently asserted upon this floor that Texas was annexed to the United States for the purpose of streiigtlieniiig the slav* holding power. No such element entered into the question, so far as Texas was concerned. It was a subject which was never taken into consideration by her; and I was not aware, and am not inclined to believe, that it was the motive of the United States. I can speak confidently for Texas. Mr. DAWSON. "Will the honorable Senator allow lYie to ask the Senator from Texas otia (Hie.'^tion ? Mr. BALDWIN. Certainly. M r. DA VVSON. Will the Senator from Texas inform the Senate whether, during the period that Texas was an independent Republic, slaves were imported there from any other covuitry than the United States? Mr. RUSK. Never, sir. At the very first Legislature, the importation of ulaves from any other country than the United States was prohtb- 13 ited, and mude puni.shal)!eas piracy. It was never dorH", sir; and could not be done. Mr. B\LDVVIN. I alln led to the documents publishe i to t'ie w>rld l>y the orican of ihia Gov- ernment, under the adminiatralion of President Tyler — lo ;i document published under the sisna- ture of the di-^tinsfuished Senator from South Car- olina, [Mr. Calhoun;] his letter to Mr. Paken- ham, the British Minister at Washington.* Mr. SE WA RD. And of Mr. Upshur, also. Mr BALDWIN. Yes; and his predecessor, Mr. Up^^hur. These documents are amply suffi- cient, j-i my judgment, to establish the point. I have not ij It the a now at hand; but they have been pl.ve.l before us here during tlie debates upon ihis 3u'>ject. [ must be parmitied todravi/ my own conclusions from them. If other gentlemen draw diffdreiu conclusions from these document;;, they are at liberty to do so; but, sir, it has been dis- tinctly avowed on this floor, by the distinguished Senaiir from South Carolina himself, that he ur^ed the annexation of Texts on the ground that Great Britain w js making eflTorts to procure the abolition of slavery in that Republic; which, if successful, would leave an exposed frontier to the aggression of the abolitionists, and endanger the institution in the bordering States. And, sir, causes may I exist with regard to the other provinces of Mexico conligjous to Texas, which will seem to demand their acquisition for a similar purpose. It is cer- tain, indeed, that they will exist. Those territo- ries are now free; and if it is understood to be the settled and irrevocable policy of the Government, in accordance witli what was the policy of this Government in 1787, to regard free territory as not subject to the admission of slavery, then 1 say the temptation to wars of annexation in that direc- tion, will cea-^e. I do not, Mr. President, intend to occupy the time of the Senate with discussing at large either the moral or the political aspects of slavery. I do not consider this a fit occasion for the discussion of the one, and I have heretofore submitted to the Senate fully, my sentiments with regard to the other. ! do not, therefore, deem it necessary now to occupy their time with the further discussion of them. But, Mr. President, it is claimed that these questions shall go to a coinmittee, for the purpose of being compromised, with a view to a fi:ial set- tlement of the account between the different sec- tions of the Union in regard to the recovery of fugitive slaves, and the agitation growing out of the course pursued by individuals in the free States ill relation to this subject. I propose, Mr. President, to say a few words in regard to the aggressions which have been imputed by the hon- orable Senator from South Carolina and others, to the free States in reference to fugitive slaves; and I beg to Bay, sir, that so far as my own State is concerned, j'deny that she has ever been unfaith- ful to any obligation imposed upon her by the * In the letter of Mr. Calhoun to Mr. Pakeiihani, daterl Washington, April 27, 1844, he says : '• The United Staler in coneJii'Jinfi; the treaty of annexation with Texas, are not disposed to shun any rei^piMisihility which may fairly attach 10 them on aerountof the transaction. The measure was adopted with the muiii'il consent, and for th>; mututi and peiminent w>;llare ariies adverse to each other, it 1 ' constitutes in the strictest sense a controversy I ' between the parties, arising under the Constitu- i ' lion of the United Statee, within the express 15 ' delegation of judicial power given by that instru- ' ment. " It is a question involving on one side a mere claim of pr-iperty; on the other, human lib- erty — a rii'ht of inappreciable vilut, which is to be, in effect, finally decided by the result of the investigation. It cannot be as3unied in the first instance, that the person thus seized is a fugitive, or that he ever was a slave. These facta, which lay at the foundation of the jurisdiction of the tri- bunal, and are necessary for iu; action, must be judicially established by evidence satisfactory to the judge. The inquiry is not, as in the case of the fugitive from justice, for the purpose of reinatiding him for trial to anntlier jurisdiction. It is for the purpose of deliverinij lurn up to the claimant as property, to be removed at his pleasure, to his t'ormer residence, or to a slave market, to be sold among strangers into hopeless slavery. Surely, before this can be done under the Constituticni of the United St-ites, in a State \vhere the person ar- rested is presumed to be free, it must be satisfac- torily proved that he is a fugitive from another State, and that he owes involuntary service under its laws to the claimant. The decision is, in ef- fect, final and without appeal. How, then, can it be said, with propriety, that this in a case in which anything short of full proof will answer the requireuient.^ of ju-.tice? Has not the man who is seized in a free State as a slave, but who claims to be a freeiaaii, a right, before he shall be withdra^vn from his own jurisdiction, from a region where he is surrounded by his friends, who can prove his title to freedom, to have a full trial before a competent tribunal, which .';hall ascertain the facts in controversy by unquestiona- ble evidence.' Is he to be surrendered up to per- petual slavery upon a mere ex parte affidavit of the claimant.' VV^hat is there to di.stinguish this case, except in its greater magnitude, from any other investigation before judicial tribunals where there are conflicting claims? These two persons, in the free State where the proceedings are held, stand upon equal ground at tlie outset of the investiga- tion. The alleged fugitive stands there as a free- man, and with the rights of a freetnnn, until he is proved to have been a slave. How, then, can the court discriminate between the claimant and him whom he has seized, and say that anything short of full and entire proof shall be enou:jh to autho- rize hia transpnriatio.i beyond tlie limits of the Stale to whicii he claims to belong? Sir, the difficulties growing out of this great question are intrinsic and inevitable; they are in- creasing as slavery is abolished in one State after another. When the act of 1793 was passed, nearly all the States of this Union were slave States. In many of them everjr man of color was presumed to be a slave. When brought befoie a tribunal for the purpose of investigation, he appeared before that tribunal with every presumption against him; but now, one State after another having aby the Spaniards', who had put them on board of the Amistad in Cuba, and fidin wlmse posset^sion and cme foreig.i law, obligatory on the Africans as well as on ilu-. claim- ants, enforced in re.-jpect to them; and that by such foreign law they were siavf s. It ap[)eared most salisfictorily by the evidence, that liiey were kidnapped ACricans!, rerenily im- ported into ihe Island of Cuba, in violation, not only of their own rii;his, but of the laws of Spain abolishing the slave-trade. The Supreme Court held, that if tliey were at the time lawfully held as slaves inider the laws of y(>aiii, and r(C(>i;fiized by those laws as propt-riy capalile of lumg bought rind sold, they were, wnhin the initnt of the treaty, included under the ilenominaiion of mer- chandise, and aa such ought to be res!oi*( d to (lie claimants; for iqion that point, s;iy the i-ourt, (he laws of Sp.jiin would stem to furnish the proper rule of interfiietation. " But admii ing this," Judge Story (Toceeds, " it is char in our opinion that neiilier of the other essential fads mikI lequi- siits has bfen istablished by proof; aid the cnus pri'bantii of tioilr \\fp upon the claimants, lo g've rise to the casvs fadcris.^' •* it is a mo.'-t iin(ian citizens 'as:e at il human 'liberty are in is.>-ue, and consiituie ilie vtrye«- ' sence of the coniio\p|Ky." Such, with the xingle exceptifui o' Mr Jusiicf Baldwin, of Pennsylva- nirt, who disst nied, was the iiiianinious opinion of the Su|)ienie Court of the United Siaies. The inqiiiiy ihen was, !» fore the court, sitting as u Court of A(1mir»l!\ , in rei'Hrd to the truth and foundation of the chinns of iiuse S[>aniards, who insisted that the All ii'ais who had bet n in their custody as slaves, v.nf rrally .slaves dy (he law ill force in Cuba. 1 he Supieii;e Cmirt oii the paiiiea of the Spanish laws which they respectively asserted and denied. 17 But it is asked, "Why not send back these prrsons to the State from which they are alleged to have escaped, and let the inq[uiry be made lliere ? Tlave you no conllufiice. in the tribunals of those Slates under whose laws they are claimed to be held in servitude ?'' It is not a question, sir, whetlier tli<:re is confidence in those tribunals or not. The question is one affm.-ting the liberty of an individual who has a right to remain v/here he is, and to assert his freedom in the State where he happens to be, until his right is disproved by evi- dence. But he is not demanded for trial. He will have no trial if delivered to the claimant. If he is in truth a freeman, and known to be so by his pursuer, he surely will never be taken to any State where he can have the benefit or opportunity of another trial. He will be sold into some remote part of the country, where he will be surrounded by no friends who can aid him in establishiniv his claim to freedom, where no evidence will be at- tainable to sustain it, where every presumption would be that he is a slave, and where, in addition, the certificate of the post-master or collector ac- companying the .«ale would, in all probability, be deemed quite sufficient to doom him to hopeless bondage. It has been said by a humane judge that It is better that ninety-nine guilty persons should escape punishment for their transgressions i than that one innocent man should suffer unjustly. if that be so in regard to those who are charged with crime, with how much nioie propriety may it be said that it is better that ninety-nine bondmen held in involuntary servitude should escape than that one freeman should be made a slave, or one free woman be surrendered up to the uncontrolled will of a master. If, sir, it be so important in the free States to have an independent judicial tribunal to settle this question, why is it not equally so in other States, where every colored man is presumed to be a slave ? Suppose that a freeman from the State of Con- j necticut — and the case has actually occurred — pursuing his lawful business as a mariner, goes into one of the ports of South Carolina, and is there seized, not because he has committed or is suspected of any crime, but for the mere color of his skin, and inri>risonetl. The master of the vessel refuses to pay the jail fees that are endeavored to be extorted from him, and leaves the unfortun- ate freeman incarcerated in a jail, from which he has no hops of deliverance until he is sold as a slave, under the statute law of South Carolina, for the payment of his jail fees. Suppose this free citizen thus sold into elavery to have suc- ceeded in escaping, and to have found his way j into another State, and to be there pursued by the j person who bought him a-? a slave. Will not that j freeman be entitled to have the question of his freedom tried v.'here he is seized, before a tribunal competent to decide it? Must be submit to the decision of some inferior executive or ministerial ofScer, in a state where, perhaps, a similar law exists, and who would of course recognize the validity of the sale? No, sir, he has a right to demand of the Government of the United States, who have volunteered iu the performance of this duty, that they shall give him an opportunity of asserting his rights before a competent judicial tribunal, where he shall have the same measure of justice to which every fre-e citixen is entitled. Sir, this is no hypothetical case. Many years ago I received a letter from a gentleman, now a distin- guished oflncer in the service of the United States, then residing m Louisiana, enclosing a commis- sion to take testimony to prove the freedom of one of ray own townsmen, who, prosecuting a lawful voyage as a mariner, arrived in the port of Charles- , ton, and was there seized, imprisoned, and sold as i a slave, and had been taken by his purchaser to the slave market of New Orleans. He had named a person in Connecticut who could prove his free- dom. He was a native of the State of New York, but had sailed voyage after voyage from New Haven. The commission was sent to obtain the evidence necessary to establish his freedom. I believe he was ultimately liberated through the humane exertions of this gentleman, who interested himself in his behalf. But, sir, wh.at a feeble chance would a negro, unprotected, under these circumstances, have of escape, in a foreign jurisdiction, hundreds of miles distant from the place of his residence, surrounded by no friends, and knowing no individual who v/ould volunteer to aid him. Suppose, sir, that thi.^ same man, instead of being taken to New Orleans, had been retained by his purchaser in Charleston; and had escaped and found hia way on board of some vessel to Connecticut. Suppose he had been there pursued and claimed as one held to involuntary servitude under the laws of South Carolina; is he to be sent back to South Carolina for trial ? Would he be likely to get justice there ? to obtain deliverance from those who were ap- pointed to administer the very laws under which a free citizen had been sold into slavery— laws which were passed and have been continued in dis- regard of the constitutional obligations of the Sta.te toward the citizens of other States? No, sir, if that man had returned to Connecticut, and when there, in the bosom of his own family, had been pursued and seized, he Vi^ould have been entitled, before he could have been taken from that State, to a trial of his right before some judicial tribunal competent to administer justice, under all the forms and solemnities, and upon all the substantial requirements of evidence ever required in courts of justice. This lav/ of South Carolina was enacted long anterior to any of the imputed aggressions by the fixe States on the rights of the South. I find, sir, in Kiles's Register, under the date of September, 1823, an opinion delivered by Judge Johnson, then a distinguished Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, a native of South Carolina, in the case of a British colored seaman who had been seized and imprisoned under this law, iri which i he says, in regard to its " unconstitutionality, it is I ' not too much to say itwill not bear an argument; ' and I fesl myself justified in using this strong lan- ' guagefrom considering the course of reasoning by I ' which it has^Jeen defended." j Mr. Wirt, then Attorney .General of the United I Sla.t€s, whose opinion in rej:;:a-a to the constitu- I tionality of the South Carolina law us=! required by the President, in consequence of the remon- strance of the British Government, who complained of it as in violation of the treaty, declared it to be unconstitutional, in terms equally decisive. That law, sir, is in the«e words: ''•And be it furlher enacted by the authoriiy aforesaid, That if liny vessel siiall come into aiiy port or harbor of Uiiu Stale, 18 from any other Slate or foreign jiou, V.'iviiig on board any FRBK negro«3 or pcrsone of color, as cook^■, stewarris, or mariners, or in any other employment on board of said ves- seJfl, ifucli FREE negroes or persons ofeolor siuill be liable to be tieiied and oontined in jail until said v.-sseis Kliall eliar out and depart fioni this State; and ihrt! when said %'essfl U rHady lo .sail, the captain of said vessel kliall be bound to carry away th'j said free negroes or persons of color, ami pay the expenses o( his detention; and in case of his ne- glect or refusal so to do, he shall be liable lo he. indieted, and, on convietinn thereof, :,hall he fined in a snni not i< ss than one thousand dollars, and imprisoned not !e.-s than two months; and Buch free negroes or persons of color -Jiall be SEEMBD ANU TAKEN as ABSOLUTE SLAVES and SOI.U ill conformity to the provisions of the act passel on the 2yth day of December, eighteen hundred and twenty, aforesaid." Yes, sir, such free negroes and persons of color " sliall be deemed and taken as absolute * 8LAVES, and eold in conformity to the provisions ' of the act passed on the 20th day of December, ^ 1820, aforesaid." This is the law of the State of South Carolina — a State which has so loudly complained of the northern States for the non-ful- fillment of the duties imposed upon them by the Constitution in regard to the surrender of f',^i- tives from slavery. But, sir, this is not all. The State of Massachusetts, a few years since — in the year 1844, if I recollect right — desirous of testing the validity of this law, so injurious and oppressive to her citizens engaged in commerce and navigation, sent one of her most respected and estimable citi- zens, a gentleman of high-bred courtesy and honor- able deportment, a lawyer of eminence at the Mas- sachusetts bar, who had been distinguished a^ a member of the Congress of the United States — to South Carolina, for the purpose of adopting the proper measures to enable her to vindicate before the Supreme Court of the United States, the claims of her free colored citizens to the protection guar- antied to them by the Constitution. On his arri- val at Charleston, he commutiicated in respectful terms to the Governor of that State the objeit of his mission; and within a day or two after, in pursuance of the spirit, if not in accordance with the direction, of some act or resolution passed by the General Assembly of the State, he was driven, under threats or intimations of violence if he re- mained — from her limits, accompanied by his ac- comp!i,'3hi:d daughter, a descendant of one of the fathers of this Republic, who signed the Declara- tion of Independence, and was an active member of the Convention that framed the Constitution. But, sir, this is not all. The legislation of that. State shows that they were unv/i!ling to trust not merely the Supreme Court of the United State.-^ to decide upon the constitutionality of this law, they dared not risk the question before the tribunals even of South Carolina herself. They actually passed a law, after the expulsion of Mr. Hoar, depriving the poor free colored men, imprisoned under this law, of the writ of habeas corpus! Heie it Ls: AN ACT of South Carolina, December 18, 1844. Be it enacted by the Senate an-t House oflrReprtsentritijes ^'c, That no untures to assail the rights of citizens of other States thus sacredly guarded by the Constitution ? Mr. BADGER. With the permission of thf Senator, 1 would ask whether free black persos)? are allowed to vote in Connecticut now? Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. President, they are not;, but they are none the less citizens th;tn if thej' ivere allowed to vote. They vote in all the New England StPtea except Connecticut, and, in my judgment, they ought to be allowed to vote there also; and when the propo.sition was made not Ions since for an amendment of the constitution of Con- necticut to enable them to vote, I deposited ray i9 ballot in fa/or of the right. I should do so again f the opportunity occurred. I ho!d, sir, in regard to the political rights of freemen, whatever may be ZrZnl'''"'VV^''' '"''-'^ position. wYich «.ili regulate Kseif, there should be no dis inction cti'^'-nf n"^'r''^''i^''^^^^.^"'' ''^^y^'-*^ »«' only are m the State of Connecticut. 1 hold in -'V ^^^'^'^ the statute of the State of Virginia, p-^^ed Decem- ber 23, 1792, prescribing the^qu'-'''"'^^^ion of citi- zenship. It provides that: "All free persona born within the territory of this Dom»!)i!wealih, all p:?r3ons, not being natives, who have 3l3tairi>-(l a righi to ciiizenship under former law.s, and also j!1 children, vvhi?resoever born, whose fathers or imthers are or were citizens at the tiiiio of thebiitli of such children, *sll bt: deemed citiz;Mis of ih.s Coinmonwealth until lliey ■elinqniih tiiiit cliaructer in the manner hereinaftfcr men- tioned." It is a little curious to examine the history of ;his law of the State of Virginia. It will be recol- ected by Senators that one of the articles of the )ld Confederation (article fourth) was in these ivords: " The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship md intercourse among the people of the (iitt'eront States ia his Uiiioii, the free inhabitants of e.icti of these State?, Miupers, vajiabond.-, and fujitives from justice excepted, h 2li be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free itizens in the several Staten ; and the p.iople of each Jtate shall have fr ■« injres^! and egress to and from any Khar State, and shall enjoy," &c. On the 35th of June, 1778, the delegation from South Carolina moved in Congress to amend that ;lause in the articles of Confederation by inserting ;he word " white" between the words " free" and •inhabitants." The question was taken, and ihere were found to be ayes two, noes eight. So ;hat the article remained as it was originally idopted. In 1779, before the articles of Confedera- ;ion had been ratified by a snilicient number of States to make ihcm binding, the State of Vir- ginia passed ati act prescribing the qualifications jf citizens, and inserted the word •' white." In 1783, after the adoption of the articles of Confederation, Vj^rginia repealed that act, and passed another, iir which she omitted the word ' white," and left her law standing in that respect 3ubstanti(tliy as it hris remained upon her statute jook from that day to this, showing that the State af Virginia, though concurring at that lime with South Carolina in the desire to insert the word " white," yet respected the decision of Congress, ind the States in the adoption of the articles of Confederation, and conforming her own law there- 10, extended the privileges of citizenship alike to ill, without distinction of color. And to this day, in the State of Virginia, free colored persons, born in that Stale, are citizens. Why, sir, who ever doubted that colored inhab- itants were citizens of the United States within the provisions of the judiciary act authorizing citizens af one State to sue before the Federal courts in another State.' Who ever doubted that a free col- ored inventor was entitled to the benefit of the patent law, or a colored author of tlie privilege of copyright, as citizens of the United States ? Who sver doubted that colored citizens, owning and navigating vessels of the United States, were enti- tled to all the privileges conferred by law upon i^essels owned by citizens of the United States ? rhsy take the oath of citizenship under the act of Febntary, 1793, fr «">■""'"& and licensing Amer^ ican vessels. '''"" ^^^^ questioned their right.' Are not V'^''^'^ seamen entitled to protection un- der yo-' ^'^^^^' aii'horizing the granting of protec= ll^. (-0 citizens of the United States who are serving as mariners on board your vessels ? Why, sir, the form of the protection is in these word?: " That the said E. F. is a citizen of the United States of America." Are they not citizens within the meaning of the act of May, 1820, making it criminal for citizens of the United States to engage in the slave trade ? Are they not citizens within the act forbidding licenses to carry on trade with the Indians to any but citizens ? Are they not within the firotection of our treaties, as citizens of the United States, in regard to any property they may own .' And are they not under the obligations imposed by treaty on our citizens } Are they not within your bill of rights, in the Constitution which was adopted by their votes, securing the liberty of speech and the liberty of the press, and all the other personal rights, to the people of the United States.' It seems to have been supposed by some Senators, tnat, m wruci «, mnnc n man a tuizen, ne muBt have a right to voio m the State in vvrhich he claims to be a citizen. Why, sir, aio ,.«* fomalpa in all our States citizens of the United States ? They do not vote. There are States in which naturalized citizens of the United States are not entitled to vote until they have acquired property qualific^.- lions to a certain amount, even though native citi- zens are not required to possess those qualifications. Sucli is the provision in the constitution of Rhode Island; and a similar provision, I believe, is con- tained in some other State constitutions. Again, it seems to have been supposed by some Senators that the claim is, because a man is enti- tled as a citizen of one State to all the rights and privileges of a citizen of every other State, that if he is a voter in one State, he has therefore a right to exercise the privilege of voting when he removes to another State. That does not follow at all. When he removes to another State and changes his domicil, he loses all claim arising out of his citizenship in the Slate which he has left. He be- comes a citizen or inhabitant of the State to which he has removed, and subjects himself, of course^ to its local policy. As an inhabitant of the State to which he has removed, he is not in a condition to claim to exercise the federal rights v.'hich per- tained to him when a citizen of another State, These rights are to be enjoyed only by those who remain citizens of other States than those in which they may have occasion to exercise them. Mr. Hamilton, on the 1st of April, 1783, moved an amendment to the ariicles of Confederation, " that the Treasury should be supplied m propor= tion, &.C. to the whole number of white and other free citizens," which was adopted by all the States e-Kcept Rhode I^nd. The act of Congress of 28th February, 1803, prohibits the bringing of any negroes or other per- sons of color, not being a native, a citizen, or registered seamen of the United States, into any of the ports of the United States. I have mentioned that by the law of the Slate of Virginia, as it now exists, free colored pejsons are citizens. By the charter of the city of Alexandria, at the time of the cession of that county to the United States as a part of the District of Columbia, all male citizens 20 possessing certain qualificatio., j^j^j jjjg ri^ht to vote, and among others persons w^qJ^^ ° But 5 will spend no more time upo. ,j^Jq p^j.j ^f the arg!imr-J t. Eiinuijh surely has beei. ^^y j^ show thai the free colored citizens of the noL^j.^^ States are entitled by the Constitution to all priv ileges and immunities of citizens in the several States to which they may have occasion to go. The law of Virginia, 1 may remark, was in force at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and doubtless the discussions which led to the change of the Virginia law of 1779 were fresh in £he recolleciions of the actors in the political scenes of that day. I think then, Mr. President, it will hardly be expected that the decision of any inferior local tribunal, acting under the laws of those States which thus disregard the federal rights secured by the Constitution to all the free citizens of the other States, would be deemed satis- factory upon a question of human liberty, to which a colored citizen of a free State seized as a fugitive slave might be a party. I think, sir, thatthe safe- ty of this classofciiizensdemandsthatthe question should be heard and decided by the permanent iu- uiciai triDunais oi mis vjoveninieiR. n » am rigiii in the views I have taken on this suhj^ct, then the bill proposed by ti^o Committee on the Judiciary certainly ought not to be adopted by Congress, be- cause it attempts to impose judicial duties on those whose offices neither qualify nor authorize them to exercise funrtions of that sort, and who are not appointed in the mode prescribed by the Constitu- tion for those who are to exercise the judicial power. But if these are not judicial duties, if this IS not an excrcipe of judicial power, then, I ask again, by what authority is it attempted to be con- ferred on the judges or the courts of the United Stales } On the whole, Mr. President, it appears to me Shat all that is needed upon this subject of fugitive slaves, is to amrnd the existing act of Congress so as to confint the exercise of the powers confer- red to the judges or courts of the United States, and to secure lo those who allege themselves to be free the advantage of an impartial jury to aid the courts in the ascertainment of facts. With regard to other grievances which have been complained of, I do not propose at this lime to examine them at large. The burden of the complaint, however, seems to be that petitions have been sent hf-re from time to time by great numbers of individuals in the norlhein States who are desirouf; that Congress shall exercise all its constitutional powers in relation to the abolition of the slave-trade here, and of slavery wherever the jurisdiction of Congress may extend. Well, sir, what then ? Is this any interference with the rights of any Sintc ? Is it any grievance of which the people of any State can complain, if these pe- titioners confine their request to the action of Congress, where Congress has tlaiientire and ex- clusive power of legislation ? Senators may not be willing to grant these petitions; but have they any right to say that they or their constituents are aggrieved by their presentment ? Sir, I have long entertained the opinion that, if southern gentlemen had been united in the desire that all agitation on this subject should cease, they would have listened to the petitions of the people of this District, who have repeatedly asked for legislation in regard to the slave-trade and slavery here. As long ago as 1802, the traffic m slaves carried on in the city of Alexandrta was attended with so many attrocitics as to cause « P^^^^"^' ment of it by a grand jury as a f «^f f^^^^f^ in<- legislative redress. A judge of the circuit court in this city spoke of it in 1816, m a charge ^,the grand jury, as shock.ng ^^ .'^^^'^yi-^^^J all '-mane persons. And a pet.tioH for the sup- pressioi. .,(• [\^q slave-trade, and for the adoption of measure^ r^^ jj^g gradual abolition of slavery, was presented i.v. Congress by more than a thou- sand of the inhabit£.,tg, comprising a majority of the property-holders in the District, in 1828. Had the prayer of these petitioners been listened to, not only would the sickening scenes, of which the petitioners complained as so painful to the feelings of the people of the District, have been Ions since at an end, but the plan they recommended for the gradual abolition of slavery in the District would by this time have brought the system very nearly to an end, in the very way that it has been accom- plished in nearly all the States which have hither- to abolished it. nnmn!^:"'- >•"•' ^"^^ "^"'^^ tliat people from other parts of the country have petitioned , as well as the people of the District, who alone, it is said, are concerned. Is it at all surprising thiit they have done so, when they have seen with what neglect" the petitions of the residents of the Dis- trict have been treated by Congress — when they witness the continuance, unchecked, of a system to which they are in principle opposed, and far which, in common with the rest of the people of the United States, they feel that they are in some measure responsible? I will not, Mr. President, occupy further the time of the Senate in this discussion. I will only say, in conclusion — and I say it v/ith great defer- ence to the opinions of others — that there is, in my opinion, but one course to be pursued to calm the agitations that now surround us, and prevent their recurrence. It is to place ourselves firmly on the platform of the Constitution, adhering faith- fully to its compromises, and administering, in the spirit which animated our fathers, and in the light of their admonitions and example, the powers con- fided to us by the people. No compromises of principle are required for our security. No sec- tional concessions should be asked, or expectations encouraged; but even-handed justice secured to all. Pur.ouing such a course, I fear no'dariger to the Union. Its foundations are too deeply laid in the interests and affections of the people, and in their cherished recollections of the past, to be easi- ly disturbed. It is emphatically their govern- ment; and its powers, though wisely and carefully limited, are amply sufficient, if beneficently di- rected, to lead us to a higher degree of national glory and happiness than has fallen to the lot of any other people. Let us, then, be just and faithful to the Consti- tution, and fear not; acting on every question, as it is presented, in a spirit of patriotism, justice, and firmness. And whatever may be the result of our deliberations, if there be any who for such a cause are ready to cry out disunion, and encourage the formation of sectional combinations to promote it, they have only to turn their eyes in any direc- tion to see the hand-writing on the wall, in char- acters which cannot be mistaken, to want them to beware. j>^ O « " • * <^ •/ \-^-?V "o^^^-/ \*^-?\/ ^ '^-..^^ 5- '^- 'It* A» j.°-n^, v >•/ \-^-'\/ V'^^"/ \*^-\/ ^ .*;«»"= %.<>^ =*»'•' \/ .*^te-. %.*^ « *bv^ ' V I BOOK8IND1NC H * ^1 -Ian f eb 1989 H ^^\ .45 ^•^^. -J