■ — 1 
 
 E 438 
 
 .P97 
 
 Copy 1 
 
 

-i- 
 
 VINDICATION OF THE NORTHERN DEIVIOORACT. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HOK GEORGE E. PUGH, OF OHIO 
 
 DELIVEEED 
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
 
 DECEMBER 19, 1859. 
 
 Tlie Senate proceeded to consider the i-esolution offered by Mr. Pur.n, on tJie 15th 
 instant, as follows : 
 
 liemlTed, That the Committee on Territories be instructed to inquire into the expediency of re- 
 pealing so much of tlie acts approved September 9, 1850, for the organization of Territorial govern- 
 ments in New Mexico and Utah, as requires that all the laws passed by the Legislatures of those 
 Territories shall be submitted to Congress for approval or rejection. 
 
 Mr. PUGH said: 
 
 I offered this resolution, Mr. President, because I was foreclosed, by what T said 
 when the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Mason] introduced his resolution, relative to 
 the transactions at Harper's Ferry, from making some response, immediately, to what 
 several Senators have felt themselves called upon to say here, in the course of the 
 present session, as well as elsewhei-e, and indeed throughout the country, since our ad- 
 journment in March last. I had earnestly desired that the brief residue of my service, 
 in Congress, might pass with as little trouble and as few controversies as possible ; 
 but, certainly, after the language employed by the Senator from Geoi-gia [Mr. Tver- 
 son] not once merely, but twice and thrice, I should fail in duty to my constituents 
 if I did not endeavor to repel definitely, and answer completely, the accusations 
 thus preferred. Ths Senator from Georgia made his accusation thrice, and on tiiree 
 successive days. He charged the Democracy of the northern States, on the fii-st 
 day, with being unsound, and if not corrupt, politically, at least corruptible. He 
 returned to the charge on the second day ; reiterating what he had previously said, 
 and accom.panying it with an allegation that the fear of defeat, the fear of losing 
 power and office in our own States, had made us succumb, at last, to the inflnencc of 
 a sectional organization. He returned to his charge, on the third day, to add tliat 
 the doctrine entertained by the Democracy of the northern States, with respect to 
 Territorial governments, was more injurious to the interests and the rights of the 
 South than the Wilmot proviso itself, and far less candid or ingenuous. 
 
 Now, sir, as to the soundness or unsoundness of the northern Democrac}-, T beg 
 leave to inform the honorable Senator from Georgia that we have not elected him 
 to be our judge; we have not submitted ourselves to his instruction; nor do we 
 propose thus to be instructed. We are in the habit of meeting annually fogethor, 
 by delegates, in our several counties and States ; and once in four years, we have 
 met the delegates of the southern Democracy in general convention; but we take it 
 npon ourselves to decide, on all such occasions, how far the opinions which we en- 
 tertain are to be treated as sound or unsound. Those who do not like them, or do 
 not like to associate with us, can choose better company. Those who like our 
 opinions, and our conduct, may remain with us in a common organization; but not 
 Tipon terms of distinction in their favor, and against us, whether in regard ti> fideli- 
 ty of principle, or anything else. This brings me to the Senator's second accusation. 
 
 I do not stand here, Mr. President, to chant the praises of the Deinocracy of the 
 non-slaveholding States. I claim no credit for them except that of having done 
 their duty — rather a rare distinction, to be sure, in our times. _ We esteem a man, 
 in the ordinary affairs of life, who discharges his pecuniary obligations on the day 
 
 Printed by Lemuel Towers, 
 
e: 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 Trr 
 
 when tLev fall duo; oiul, partioulail}', if he makes some serious sacriflee to accom- 
 plish it, "Witliiii tlie Id'it ti\e years, a powerful and oiiee dominant party has been 
 overthrown at the North — a party which, when I was eleeted to the Senate, iu 
 March, is.'i-}, coiitroileJ every nortliwojtern State- — the local governments, the 
 representation in Congress, the county otHces ; yet, sir, we have followed the flag 
 of our party, and adhered to its organieation, although opposed to the prejudices 
 of our own "section, ndln-red in spite of apj«enls to our passion;; and our jn'ide, until 
 the viii»l. mouutaiii of rienioc-ratic strengtii, at home, has meltt^-d away heiieatli our 
 feet. Vet we are charged, to-day, in the Senate of tfie United States, by tJiost- for 
 whom we made such sacrifices, l)y those who never did bear the burthen and heat 
 of anj- Serious struggle, with being unsound in principle, and unworthy of con- 
 fidence. Sir, when the Democracy of the southern States can show a record like 
 ours, when tliey shall have resisted such ai)peals to their section, have stood as a 
 bulwark to the North against sectional prejudice and sectional pride, it will be 
 time enoUL'h to condemn us whom they now atTect to despise. 
 
 I proceed to the Senator's third accusation. He says that the doctrines enter- 
 tained bv the Deniocracy of the non-slaveholding States, in regard to the power of 
 Congress over the Territoiics. are inlinilely more dangerous to the southern Si;a.es 
 than the doctrine of the "Wilmot proviso. Mr. President, whilst I was easting about 
 for an answer to this, I had the good fortune to tind one already made to my hand. 
 I discovered that a distinguished gentleman, on the 26th day of Julj-, 1848, ia the 
 House of Representatives, expressed himself in this uianner: 
 
 "Sir, the opinions and position of General Cass, upon the subject of slavery, liave been deliber- 
 ately formed and openly avowed to the American people. lli.« sentiments are not left to vague con- 
 jcciiire, or contriidiclory construction. Whilst General Taylor is ursced upon the South because, 
 "from his rPsidence and interest, he is suppot-ed and alleged to be opposed to the "Wilmot proviso; 
 and upon the North because he is believed to be in its favor, or pledged not to veto it if passed by 
 (^ ohgri-ss ; whilst the position of General Taylor is like the Delphic oracle, giving oui responses to 
 suit the wishes and tastesof those who consult it, General Cass has spoken in direct and unequivocal 
 lungnace to all. He has declared himself, in termfi, the unyielding opponent of the,iuri8dietion of 
 Congress over the subject of slavery in any form whatever. In bis letter to Mr. Nicholson, he takes 
 open, Muinly. decisive ground. In his letter to the committee of the Baltimore convention, he gives 
 an explicit iidhesion to all the principles adopted by that body, one of which lays down Itie-Bemo- 
 cratlc platform upon the subject of slavery." 
 
 I rend that as an introduction to something else ; and to show that the opinions 
 entertaiiied by the present Secrttary of State — opinions which he announced in this 
 chamber, man}" times, in the hearing of tiu-ee fourths of those who now hear me — 
 Avere the acknowledged opinions of the Detuocratic party, North and South, at that 
 time. Now for the specific quotation: 
 
 " It has been objected that the position assumed by General Cass, and approved by the groat 
 body of the Kemocratic parly in every section of the IJnion, that Congress has no power over the 
 <,aestion of slavery, and that it belongs exclusively to the people of the Territories themselves, is 
 wurse for l)ie South than the doctrine of the M'ilmot proviso. We are told that slavery is now ex- 
 cluded from Now Mexico ami California, and that the question must be decided against uie South 
 if left to their inhabitants. Sir, suppose this be tnie, how much worse off are we than if ihe juris- 
 diction be left to Congress? If the power he admitted to the Federal Government, who does not 
 see and know that the adoption of the Wilmot proviso is Inevitable? The only guaranty against 
 it* adoption at the present moment is the constitntionul scruples of northern Democrats, and the ex- 
 ercise of the veto power. Itemove these by admitting the constitutional power, and the Wilmot 
 proTlso is fastened upon ns for all time to eotnc. What, then, can the South lose by leaving the 
 iiuestion to the people of the Territories, rather than to the Congress of the United States? Sir,! 
 do not propose to argne the question of constitutional power, either in Congress or the Territories, 
 over this Kul)Ject. Much difference of opinion exists as to whether the power is in the Federal 
 (fprernnieni, or in the hands of the people of the Territories. These questions have been ably 
 argued by those who have gone bctore me in this debate, and I do not intend to occupy the time of 
 the committee in their renewed discussion. 
 
 •'It is admitted, however, by all jiarties, that there is a point of time at which this question of 
 slaTcry or no Blavery may be, and must be, decided by the people of the Territories. When they 
 ni«M-l in convention. In the exercise of sovereign authority, to form a constitution preparatory to ad- 
 mission into this Cnion as a State, tfifn they may regulate this (piestion of slavery at pleasure. The 
 only difTeren<'<< of opinion upon the pf>int is, whether the people may or may not, under the Con- 
 Kiitutlon, exertist! iliis power by territorial legislation prior to the formation of a Stale constitution. 
 hir, without dimfussing or deciding the question, I <lo not consider it a matter of essential importance 
 til the South at what lime this power may be exercised by the i)Cople of the Territories. It is, in 
 my .ipiidon. of liillnitely more Importance, both to the South and to the Union, that the power be 
 \>-n U. the TcrriU>ries. inxlearl of the Federal Government. Sir, <locs it Ibllow, that if the power be 
 Irfl Ui the people in their territorial capacity, slavery will necessarily be excluded? Is it true, sir, 
 IhKl nluvi-ry In at this uioment prohibited in New .Mexico and California? It is admitted that the 
 rnnailtiiilon of Mexico <lcclarc8 that slavery shall not exist in the Slates of that Kepublic. But, sir, 
 California and New Mexico are uo longer' portions of the Mexican nation. They lia> c uocu, by 
 ireaiy. irniutferred, m Territories or provinces, to the ITnitcd States, and at the very liKuiitnt of 
 Irnn't'-r. ^'1 iii*t<(ii//, the cc.nstilutiomil provisions of tlie Mexican Government ceased their opf-ra- 
 tion.niid Ihone of our Constitution assumed their place. The t'onstitution of the United ^t.itesre- 
 roiftil/.en the exii-leiiro of nluviry, and prntei-ts its enjoyment. These Territories are eoi-'irion prop- 
 erly of uiX the pcoplu of nil Iho blulu*. UnlU, tliurufore, legislative power ahull be exercised by some 
 
tribunal having jurisdiction, the wliole question of slavery in these Ti^rritories i,s led in abeyance, 
 and the country open to tlie emipralion of all. Now, sir, whether tlio pcoiile in their territorial 
 capacity can constitutionally or rislitfully exclude slavery, I am willing to Icavi^ to llie deciaion of 
 the Supreme Court, wliicli many gentlemen contend is tlie pro[)er and constitutional tribunal for ila 
 decision, or to the consi<leration and judgment of tlu- pi'opir themselves. 
 
 " It is a principle in human nature, as powerful as universal, that political action of communities 
 will be regulated and controlled by the interests of the jiarties concerned. If, therefore, it Bhall 
 appear that slave labor may be profitably employed in these new territories of the Union, and tlie 
 people are left free to act, they will adopt the institution of slavery. If, on the otlu-r hand, it shall 
 be found that the climate and soil are not adapted to the protltable employment of slave labor, no 
 slaves will ever fii\d tlieir way into the country, however wide the door may be opened for their 
 admission. All that the South, therefore, can or ought to ask, is that the people of the Territories 
 be left to decide this most important question for themselves. If their interest dictates it, slavery 
 will be established, in spite of the prejudices either of Mexican residents or those who may emigrate 
 from the States of this Government. Experience teaches that the Yankee who moves to and settles 
 at the .-^outh, where slave labor is profitable, is as willing and as ready to own slaves, ay, and to 
 task them too, as those who have been born and bred up in their midst. That zeal (or human 
 freedom, so patriotically cultivated and proclaimed in their native land, like the courage of Bob 
 Acres, 'oozes out at their fingers' ends,' as soon as they come under the genial sun of southern 
 slavery. The promptings of ambition and interest soon overcome the prejudices of early educa- 
 tion, "if slavery, then, cannot be profitably introduced into the country.it will never go there, 
 although you may pass laws recognizing its existence and protecting its enjoyment. 
 
 '• If it be profitable, depend upon it the people will have it in spite of i)rejudice, if you do not 
 prohibit it by congressional legislation. Let, therefore, this exciting, distracting, disturbing subject 
 be left to the ju<lgment and decision of those who will be most deeply interested in it and affected 
 by it. There it will be coolly considered, and properly decided; and, as a southern man, I am 
 willing to trust the ilecision and abide the result. Let it be kept out of the Halls of Congress ; for 
 here, and here only, will the exercise of this dangerous and disputed power put this experiment of 
 a Federal (jnion to the severest teaU'—lAppendLe to Congressional Globe, (184S,) pp 9(35, 966.] 
 
 What Free-soiler delivered that? Wkat gentleman of "iin.sonnd" priii<:iples? 
 What gentleman whose Democracj', if not corrupt, was at least corruptible ? Ls there 
 anytliing declared by General Cass in his famous Nicliolson letter; is there any- 
 thing pronounced by Judge Douglas in his Freeport speech, which, according to the 
 Senator from Geori^ia, could be more heretical and mischievous? Yet, sir, that is 
 the language of the Senator from Georgia, himself, eleven years ago; and I say to 
 him, in all kindness, to beware of condemning his own recorded opinions. 
 
 But, sir, that is not all. The legislature of Georgia, by which the Senator was 
 chosen, at the time when the Kansas-Nebraska bill was before the Senate, sent 
 hither instructions as to the interference of Congress with the legislation of the 
 Territories; and there is not, any where, in my judgment, a safer platform tliaa 
 the resolutions which Georgia then adopted. I will thank the Secretary to relieve 
 me by reading them. 
 
 Tlie Secretary read as follows : 
 
 R' solution ill relation to the Territory of Nebraska. 
 
 " The State of Georgia, in solemn convention, having firmly fixed herself upon the principles of 
 the compromise measures of 1S50, relating to the subject of slavery in the Territories of the United 
 States, as a final settlement of the agitation of that question, its withdrawal froiu the Halls of Con- 
 gress and the political arena, and its reference to the people of the Territories interested therein; 
 and distinctly recognizing in those compromise measures the doctrine that it is not competent for 
 Consress to impose any i-estrictions as to the existence of slavery among them, upon the citizens 
 moving into and settling upon the territories of the Union, acquired or to be hereafter acquired, but 
 that the question, whether slavery shall or shall not form a part of their domestic instiiutions. is for 
 them alone to determine for themselves ; and her present Executive having reiterated and affirmed 
 the same fixed policy in his inaugural address : 
 
 Be it enacted hy the Senate and Jloune of Repreftentativeit of the. St^te of Georgia in General 
 AKsenihlij met, That the Legislature of Georgia, as the representatives of the people, speaking their 
 will and expressing their feelings, have had their confidence strengthened in the settled determina- 
 tion of the great body of the northern people to carry out in good faith those principles, in the 
 practical application "of them to the bills reported by Mr Douol.-vs, from the Committee on Terri- 
 tories, in the United Slates Senate, at the present session, jiroposing the organization of a territorial 
 government for the Territory of Nebraska. 
 
 And he it further resolred. That our Senators in Congress be, and they are hereby instructed, 
 and our Kepresentatives requested, to vote for and support those principles, and to use all proper 
 means in their power for carrying them out. either as a]>plied to the government of the Territory 
 of Nebraska, or in any other hi]] for territorial government which may come before them. 
 
 Resolved further. That his excellency, the Governor, be requested to transmit a copy of these 
 resolutions to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress 
 
 JOHN E. WAKD. Speaker of the House of Representatives. 
 JOHN D. STELL, Preisident of tlie Senate. 
 
 In Senate, agreed to, February 17, 1854. 
 
 Hugh M. Moobe, Secretary of th^ Senate. 
 
 In House of Representatives, concurred in, February IT, 1854. 
 
 Wm. T. Waffoed," f/s/'/fc of the ffojise of Representatives. 
 
 Approved, Febri'iry 20, 1S54, 
 
 HERSCHEL Y. JOHNSON, Governor. 
 
 Mr. PUGII. '■-''ow, I say to the Senator, and to all other representatives of the 
 Democratic party, from the South and from the North, that I stand on this Georgia 
 
platform; nn<1 if excluded from your fellowship, I must take the entire Democracy 
 of (ictirjriu witli me. 
 
 1 rot'orred, at the outset, to speeohcs made in other places than the Senate Cham- 
 ber, fiiiioe tne adiduniinerit t>f March last; and I havo given notice, privately, to the 
 yenutor from California, [Mr. OwiN,] that I should require his attention, this niorn- 
 iiijr, for a liltle wiiiJe. 1 have hefore nie the report of a speech delivered by that 
 Senator, sometime in .'ul}' hist, at (Trass Valley, in the State of California, in wliieh 
 he reiterates what he said, very late at night, on one of the last days of our last re- 
 gular s<'8;i»>ii ; namely, that if lie had understood the Kansas-Nebraska bill as it is 
 now inter]ir>-ted by the Democratic party in the northern States, he uever would 
 have viitwd for it. 
 
 Mr. (iWIN. I made no such statement. 
 
 Mr. PLUifl. 1 submit to be corrected with pleasure. 
 
 Mr. OWIN. 1 slated that if 1 ha<l uiuleistrjod the Kansas-Nebraska bill as con- 
 strued Ity the Senator from Iliinoi.-, [.Mr. Douglas,] in his Freeport s})eech, I should 
 not liave voted for it. 
 
 Mr. rt'OII. Well, I accept tliat qualification. The difficulty with the Senator 
 is, tliat he did not vote for the bill at his own motion ; he was instructed to give that 
 vote; and the Legislature of Calil'oniia wrote down for him, ia their instruction, 
 what they imderstood the Ktmsar-isebraska bill to mean. 
 
 ill'. GWIN. If the Senator will pei init me, I will eay that I voted for it before 
 the instructions got here, and even before they were passed. 
 
 Mr. PUtrll. Tliat ma}- be, but certainly it will not be claimed that the Senator 
 from California is a better exponent of the views of the California Democracy, at 
 that time, than the legislature which thus instructed him. Having read the non- 
 iNTEUvK.sTiox platform of Georgia, I j)ropo.se now to read the popular sovebeigntt 
 platform of California. 
 
 Senate Joint lifKolutionn in relation to the^^Kehranka bill," introduced into the Senate of the 
 
 Unitfl .■ittitee, on the 2:id diiij ofjanuat-y, 18.'i4. 
 
 " WliiTcas, a bill to orpanizp llie Territory of Nebraska has been intrcfduced into the Senate of the 
 UDiled Stiitcn, which bill rei-i»;rni/,o!* the fDllowiiii; doctrine: That all suits, involving questions of 
 pers'>ii:il freedom and title tn shives shall he deeided by the local tribunals of the States or Territo- 
 ries, with rishl rtf appeal to the Sii|)reiiie Court of the United Stales ; that the ))rovisions of the Con- 
 stution of the fnited St4ite,t in relation lo fusriuves from service .shall Ije faithfully executed in 
 organized TerrilorieH of the United States, as well as in the Slates, and that they ougbt to be rigidly 
 enforeed alike in both ; that the people residin.- in Territories, and the Slates to be formed out of 
 them, nhall deciile all questions pertaining to slavery therein throuirh their representatives to be 
 elected for Unit purpose; that the compromise of ISrn) ia inconsistent with, and supersedes, the com- 
 proniife of l"--^!!. known as the Missouri conipromiiie : .\nd whereas, the aliove principles but reiterate, 
 In lan(;u:iue and i<ubgt»nee. the eoniproniise ineiis\ires of 1s5(). in relation lo slavery, which measures 
 oujrht to be faitlifully oliserved in all the State? and or£:aiM/ed Territories : Therefore, 
 
 "yy«' it rrtuilrril I'll the Stiiute and AsHcnd^ly of the Stntc of C li/ornia, That we approve of the 
 provisii'ns. as s< I f'^rth. of the bill for ' an act to organize ttu^ Territory of Nebraska,' introduced 
 fnlo llie Senate oflhe V'nited Mates, on the 2Sd of January. 1854. 
 
 " /i'r-iiivfil. That our Senators in •'oup-ess be instructed, and our Representatives requested, to 
 TOte for. and to use their best exertions lo procure the passage of said bill. 
 
 " /;.«'./rc(/. That his ejteeliency, the Oovernor, be requested to forward a copy of the foregoing 
 prcnml>lc and re«oluiion» to eich of our Senators and lleiires^niatives in Congress. 
 
 "SlKnc<l, May 9, ISW. CIIARLKS S. FAIRFAX, 
 
 \^ Speai-er // the Assemhly, 
 
 " Blgned, May 10, 1S54. SAMltEL PURDT, 
 
 " President of the /Senate.'" 
 
 It was very apjiropriate that California should speak in such words; for this odious 
 epitli.-t, "(^.jivrrKR sDVEiiKKi.sTV," ni«w employed to frighten men here and else- 
 where, svas invented for lier bonetit. It was first api)licd to her; to the formation 
 of her State cnnstilution. in whieli the Senator from (California, himself, so largely 
 pRrtici[ialed. What was your Leeon.pton constitution but "squatter sovereignty" 
 oflhe snm-' Hort? You wiio tell me that a Territorial Legislature cannot regulate, 
 even by temporary law, the relations of persons and property within its own juris- 
 diction, do you hold ihiitfciicli a IcL'i-'lature can set on foot a sovereign State govern- 
 ment y You Hfiy that a territory has no attribute of sovereignty ; nevertheless, 
 occordin»; to the |.recedeni of tlw; l,ecom()ton constitntion, it can make a sovereign. 
 
 The initial point of dillVreMce between my distingni.slied friend, the Senator from 
 lllinoi«[Mr. l>oif;i.A«] and myself, durinu' the whole of that controversy, was exactly 
 then-. If I had believed, with you, (hat the Congress of the United States alone 
 conferred tipon the territorial authmilies whatsoever power they possessed ; that 
 O territorial t'overimient was a Rubordinnte munei|mlitv, of less degree than a city 
 or town ...rpoinle; that n T.Mritorinl l..gishilure was I'hc mere agent of Congress 
 \fi Kcrf'-rm certiiin -luticH whieh Congrc-^s had d.dcgated; if I could have believed 
 
thui?, two years wjro, I should have suiil, with tlie Sciiutor from lUinoirt, that your 
 Lecomptoii cont^tilntion was only a ])i-»iiu>itiiiii to he aeeoptccl or ri-jci'tcil at our 
 pleasure. And if I had helieved it. to he a iinipositioii subject to o\ii' aceejitaiiec or 
 rejection, as he did, 1 certaiidy should have counselled its entire and ah.-(dute rejec- 
 tion. I differed witli the tienator from Illinois, however, in the Leeoni]>ton contro- 
 versy, because I helieved that the people ot a territory had as much right, through 
 their Territorial government, to set on foot proceedint;s toward the fdrmation of 
 a Slate constitution as Congress l>ad ; and I pointed to the fact that a mujoiity of 
 the new Stales had formed their eoustitiitiuns in that manner. And I do not now 
 see, Mr. President, any ground, any safe gi-ound, on wliicli the advocates of the Le- 
 compton constitution can stand lor one moment except that which I have specified. 
 But I return to the State of California. 1 have admoinshed the lionorable Senator 
 as to her opinion at the time he was easting lier vote lor the Kansas-Nebraska bill 
 I now propose to give him a later declaration. 1 will read him a res(dution adopted 
 by the Democratic convention of California, since our discussion of these subjects, 
 in the Senate, on the 23d of February last. If it be not truly reported, 1 will lliank 
 the Semitor to furnish me a correct copy : 
 
 " lieso/red, Tliat tlie organized Territories of tlie United States, aUiiough not en<lowcd witli all 
 the attributes of sovereignty, are yet justly entitled to ttie right of sell-governinent, and llie undis- 
 turbed regulation of their domestic and local affairs, subject to the Constitution of the United Stales ; 
 and that any attempt by Congress or any of tlie States to establish or prohibit or abolish the relation 
 of master and slave in a territory, would be a departure from the original doctrine of our American 
 institutions; and that we adhere immovably to the principle of 'non-intervention' by Congress with 
 slavery in the States and Territories, as declared in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and openly disclaim 
 
 fellowship." 
 
 I sliould like to have the attention of tlie Senator from Georgia now — 
 "and openly disclaim fellowship with those, whether at the South, the North, or the West, who 
 counsel the abandonment, limitation, or avoidance of that principle." 
 
 Tiiat is the voice of the California Democracy as expressed in their last State 
 convention; and as I have told the Senator privately, I tell him now publicly, I am 
 the author of that resolution. It was copied from the platform of the Ohio De- 
 mocracy adopted in May last. 
 
 Mr. GWIN. Does the Senator saj- that is the identical resolution that was adopted 
 in Ohio? 
 
 Mr. PUGH. Can the Senator show me a difference? I will send him the Ohio 
 resolution. 
 
 Mr. GWIX. When the Senator goes on, I will point it out. 
 
 Mr. PUGII. I have tlie resolution here, and ask that it mav be read. There are 
 some words omitted in the California copy ; because when I spoke for the Democracy 
 of Ohio, I intended to embrace another question — but I can explain better from the 
 resolution itself Mr. Secretary, will you read what I send to the chair? 
 
 The Secretary read as follows : 
 
 " The Democracy of Ohio, by their delegates in convention assembled, hereby affirm the platform 
 of principles adopted by the general convention. of the Democratic party at Cincinnati, on the 4lh 
 of June, 1S56. 
 
 " Besotted, That the organized Territories of the United States, although nnt endowed with all 
 the attributes of sovereignly, are only held in the territorial condition until they attain a siiflieient 
 number of inhabitants ti> authorize their admission into the Union as States; and. therefore, are 
 justly entitled to the riglit of self-government, and the undisturbed regulation of their domestic or 
 local affairs, subject to the Constitution of the United States ; and that any attempt by Congress, or 
 any of the States, to establish or maintain, prohibit or abolish, the relation of master and slave in a 
 Territory, would be a departure from the original doctrine of our American institutions. AncI that 
 we adhere, immovably, to the principle of 'non-intervention by Congress, with slavery in the States 
 and Territories,' as declared in the Kan.oas-Nebraskabill. and cpenly disclaim fellowship with those, 
 ■whether at the South or the North or the West, who counsel the abandonment, limitation, or avoid- 
 ance of that principle." 
 
 Mr. PUGII If the Senator thinks there is any essential distinction, I will thank 
 him to point it out. 
 
 Mr. GWIN. I will state that the resolutions of California strike out the words 
 ■"or maintain" after "establish." 
 
 Mr. PUGII. Will the Senator tell me a difference between "establish" and 
 ""maintain" in tliat connection? 
 
 Mr. GWIN^. There is a great difference between establishing slavery and maia- 
 taimngit afterwards. 
 
 Mr. PUGH. I do not perceive any difference in the words as there employed; 
 my Jcnowledge of the English language fails to that extent. I perceive only a form 
 of verbal repetition. The Senator omitted in his copy, however, an essential propo- 
 fii.tion of the Dred Scott case. In the Ohio resolution, the theory of a territorial 
 igovernmeat is placed exactly where the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court placed 
 
y 
 
 Bign 
 
 6 
 
 it in the Pred Scott case; namely, that a Territory was only held in tlie (erritorial 
 condition until it had acquired suliicient populalion to become a. State. The Sena- 
 tor did not eojiv that into the California plHtforni, and I shall iiave oeea^iou to show 
 him several oilier jmrtieular^ in whicli he has departed from safe precedents. It 
 war* adopted in the Ohio platform, furtliermore, because a previous convention, by 
 unanimons vote, liad ratified the conference bill in respect to Kansas, and we meant 
 to reaflirni, as u general |>rinciple, that territories ought not to be thrust forward 
 for adiuis:!ioM into the Union, as States, until they had sufficient population. In 
 that, the California Democracy seem not to have imit;ited us ; whether because they 
 had some trouble on the subject of the conference bill, or for what other cause, I am 
 unable to pay. 
 
 In this connection, I will inform the Senator what I have always understood 
 the Kansas-Nebraska bill to mean ; what I believe almost every Democrat in the 
 northern States understands it to mean ; what it has been represented to mean, day 
 after day. month after month, in our Senitorial discussions, until within the last 
 ,'ear. I adopt for that purpose the language of Franklin Pierce, the President who 
 igned the bill, as contained in his message to the Senate, January 24th, 1856: 
 
 "The act to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas was a manifestation of the legisla- 
 tive opinion of t'nnirress on two great points of constitutional conjitruction : one that the designation 
 of the t>i)iindarics of a new Territory, and provision for its poliiioul organization and administration 
 as a Territory, are measnres which, of right, fiill within the powers of the Gerieral GoTernuienl; and 
 the other, that the inhabitants of any such Territory, ronsiiicred as an inchoate State, are entitled 
 in the exercise of self-government, to determine for themselves what shall be their own domestic 
 inslitutious, subject only to the Constitiilitm and tlie laws duly enacted by Congress under it, and to 
 the power • f the existing States to decide, according to the provisions and princijdes of the Gonsti- 
 tution. at what lime the Territory shall be received :is a State into the Union. Such are the great 
 pt)liiical rights which are solemnly declared and attirmed by that act." 
 
 But, sir, the very interpretation to which the Senator from California objects, 
 namely, that the people of a Territory, through their Territoiial Legislature, can, 
 ■without authorit}- from Congress, and even as against the authority of Congress, 
 exclude or admit the relation of master and slave, is older than its announcement 
 by General Cass, or any other northern man. It was a favorite doctrine with the 
 southern States tifteen 3'ears ago; and to jirove that, I shall cite two resolutions 
 adopted by the Legislature of Florida, and approved by tlie Govci-iior of the State, 
 December 30th, 1S47. Mr. Secretaiy, read me the second and third of those reso- 
 lutions, an<l I hope that gentlemen will listen to what Florida then said. 
 
 Tiie Secretary read as follows: 
 
 " Sec. 2. £e it further resolved, That in the opinion of this General Assembly, a just and correct 
 Interjiretation of the Constitution of the United Statits, vests in the TerriUirial as well as the Stats 
 LegM'itiirei, ea-chixire iurisiViel'ioR over the persons of individuals within their respective limits, 
 and that it would be arliitrary, unjust, and a usurpation of power on the part of Congress to annex 
 renditions to ihe admission of a State into the Union, or the annexing a Territory thereto, involving 
 the right of jurisdii^lion in Congress over this sulyect, which exclusively belongs to the Territory 
 itxelf hefiire lt.« admission into the Union, and to llie State afterwards. 
 
 "8«c.' 8. B« it further resolved. That it would bo an arbitrary usurpation of power on the part of 
 Congress lo exclude slavery from any such territory as may herea'fier be acquired by the United States, 
 either by way of in<lemnity, by conquest, or by purchase; that the peojile alone have the right to 
 dulerminu upon this subject, and il is for them, while they remain a Territory, and for the State, 
 when th(;y shall ahk to be admitted as a State, to gay whether the institution of .slavery shall exist 
 within the limits of such Territory or State; they having, by a just interpretation of the Constitution, 
 exclusivejurisdiction over the subject-matter within their limits." 
 
 Mr. PUtilL It is tedious to the Senate, probably, to hear so many resolutions, 
 and indeed, in that respect, my duty is almost discharged. I wished fully to expose, 
 however, the attempt mow macle, contrary to the former opinions of the southern 
 legislfttiireo, to violate the covenant of fhe Kansas-Nebra.'^ka bill, and interpolate into 
 tlie Cincinnati platform certain pro|)ONil ions expressly rejected by the committee 
 which adopted that platform; and upon such texts, to preach sermons in regard to 
 llie Hoiindn.-ss or unsoundness of Democrat's liere and elsewhere. 
 
 Mr. President, I ought to notice one more statement of Ihe .Senator from Califor- 
 nia. In his speech at Grass Valley, to which 1 have alluded, he employed this sort 
 of language: 
 
 " Ni-Br the chwe of the last session of C«>ngres.s, a debate was sprung upon the Senate upon the 
 flnemlon of Ierrll.irl»l noverelgnty. AVe had long pxpeoled such a discussion, because it was the 
 duly of .Mr. Uoi-oi.as lo give his reasons to the Senate and to the country for the line of policy he 
 hiul conhidered It his duly to adopt in the henalorial canvass ?in Illinois. The doctrines he had 
 •Towed In his Kn-eporl speech hud been on.lomned In the Senate by his removal frr)m the 
 chiilririnn/.hli. of the Territorial CommilCee of that l-ody, and it Was expected that he would defend 
 the pofilinn h<- Imd taken, and give ample time to those who differod from him to give Ihe reasons 
 Uiat had iiillu. need iheiii In removing him from lliat iinportaiit position, at the heail of the Territo- 
 rial Coininllli e, ho had UllcJ for «o many vears in the Senate." 
 
Sir, I cannot but admire llie justice of the Senator from California. lie tells 119 
 that the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. T)orflLA!!,] was cito.l, like a iiotoriouf hort-tic, in 
 his absence — as we sometimes cite the defendant in ejectment, in cases of vacant pos- 
 session by nailing up a notice on a fence-corner or somewhere else ; and, thereupon, 3 
 majority of the Senate proceeded to the form of a trial, and condemned and exe- 
 cuted him; yet, according to the Senator from California, after he had been tried ami 
 convicted and executed, it was the dnt^- of the Senator from Illinois to come in at 
 some future time, and defend himself: 
 
 " Wc oft have licaril of Lydford law ; 
 Wliere in the morn they hang and draw. 
 But sit in judgment after." 
 
 It is not for me to defend the Senator from Illinois; you all know that he is ahnndant- 
 Iv able to defend himself I do not stand here to advocate the claims of any individual. 
 But if the Senator froiii Illinois was expelled from his place at the head" of the cora- 
 mittee on Territories, for the reason here assigned, take my word for it, Senators, 
 you must also expel from fellowship ninety-nine hundred! lis of the Democracy iu 
 every non-slavcholding State. It is no longer a question of individuals ; and instead 
 of assaulting one man, and that in his absence, it would have been more creditable, 
 at once, like the Senator from Georgia, to arraign the entire party in the nortliera 
 States, and condemn that. I was not here when the famous trial, judgment, and 
 execution were transacted ; and never did understand, until I rea<l the speech of tho 
 Senator from California, what they portended. If it had been thotight advisable to 
 remove Mr. Douglas from the Territorial Committee, at the time of the Lecomjitoa 
 controversj', I could have understood that; although I never believed that the Le- 
 eompton eontroversj' ought to have made a schism in our ranks. I never could see 
 enough life in the question to endure twelve months. It was only a case for the 
 application of acknowledged principles to particular circumstances; and while two 
 men agree in principle, they may differ, and often will differ, in their views of cir- 
 cumstances or facts. Therefore, I was not in favor of removing any one from any 
 office, or place, because he diifered from me on that occasion. But 5lr. Douglas was 
 removed for no such cause. After he had delivered his speech in the Senate, 
 denouncing the Lecomptou constitution, and taking issue with nearlj' all the Demo- 
 cratic Senators, North and South, as well as with the Administration, we again 
 appointed him Chairman of the Committee on Territories; and he presided over 
 that committee until the Lecompton controversy was finished, and dead, and buried. 
 He was not removed on that occount ; but afterwards, and because he had the mis- 
 fortune to entertain opinions which are entertained by almost the entire Democratic 
 party in the northern States. 
 
 I gave notice, sir, that I would ask a question of the Democratic Senators from 
 my own section ; I will ask it now, and leave each Senator to answer it, or not, as 
 he may choose. I appeal to you, my brethren, to ascertain whether tou have estab- 
 lished any such rule of Democratic fellowship. If, as the Senator from California 
 proclaims, you were parties to this act of condemnation, do you mean to declare 
 that whosoever entertains the like opinions, in your States, is unfit to be a member 
 of the Democratic party, or to receive its suifrages? Senators, you may answer 
 me or not. 
 
 Mr. RICE. I will merely say that I was not a party to the transaction. I op- 
 posed it. 
 
 Mr. PUGH. I am very glad to hear the Senator from Minnesota speak thus. 
 In this connection, also, another fact is worth observation. You have a usage in 
 the Senate with regard to committees ; your usage is, first, never to displace a 
 Senator from any committee without his own consent ; and, second, never to pro- 
 mote another committeeman over him. I have not complained of this usage, except 
 to yourselves, privately, during my past terra of four years ; I knew that any com- 
 plaint would be attributed to a desire, on my part, to preside over some committee. 
 But, fir, I am about to leave the Senate; and, in the little time that remains to me, 
 it is not of the slightest consequence to what committee, or what place, I may be 
 assigned. I am now at liberty, therefore, to say that your usage is intolerably bad. 
 It has operated to give some Senator from a slaveholding State, the chair of every 
 committee connected with the public business of the Government. There is not a 
 single exception. Since you have deposed the Senator from Illinois, and promoted 
 the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Green] to his place, you cannot show me a conmiit- 
 tee of any importance, in the whole list, of which any Senator from a non-slave- 
 holding State is chairman. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, in my humble opinion, the simplest way to avoid controversy 
 
8 
 
 is to do justice; and justice requires that every attempt, from one section of the 
 Union or the other, to disturb tlie jilatfonn of tlie Democratic pai'ty shoukl be de- 
 nounced and defeated. We must all abide by that covenant expressed in the Kan- 
 Baa- Nebraska bill — u covenant of which I might say, iu truth, that the northera 
 I)emociacy have sealed it with their blood. 
 
 My opinion with regard to the subject of slavery in the Territories, is that from 
 the beginning, it never ought to have been touched by Congress in any shape or 
 form. 1 believe that the founders of our Federal Constitution acted upon that idea. 
 All the public domain which had been ceded by the respective States, at the time 
 of tlie formation of the Constitution, had been embraced by an arrangement of 
 which the oi'dinance of 1787 was tlie tirst branch ; tlie second branch depended 
 upon acts of cession to be thereafter made, by North Carolina, South Carolina, and 
 Georgia, of the territory west of them. It was the intention of the Continental 
 Congress thus to divide the public domain equally between the slaveholding and the 
 iion-slaveholdiug States — or, rather, between the States South and North of ilasoa 
 and Dixon's line. This arrangement jireceded the Constitution, and disposed of the 
 whole subject; consequent!}-, in the Constitution itself, nothiu:^ was said as to 
 slavei-y in the Territories — nor is there any allusion to Territorial governments. 
 The Constitution does not, in terms, authorize Congress to create anj' such govern- 
 ment ; and the Supreme Court has decided, in the Dred Scott case, that the whole 
 power of Congress with respect to Territorial organizations, is but incidental to its 
 power to admit new States. As to the clause on which Senators have sometimes 
 Commented — that which refers to the disposition and regulation of the public lands, 
 or "territory" so called — the Dred Scott case decides that it has no application 
 ■whatever to the subject of Territorial governments. In fact, the Chief Justice, 
 delivering the opinion of the Court, declares that clause of the Constitution to be 
 wholly retroactive ; intended to refer exclusively to the public lands which had been 
 ceded by the several States before the adoption of the Constitution, and inapplica- 
 ble to every subsequent cession. That is the pith of Chief Justice Taney's argu- 
 ment in the Dred Scott case. The authority of Congress to organize a Territorial 
 government is, according to that decision, merely an incident to its power to admit 
 a new State. To pretend, therefore, that an incidental power is larger than its 
 own principal, is to violate every rule of logic as well as of law. Xo man pretends, 
 in the Democratic paity, that Congress can dictate to a new State, when slie applies 
 for admission into the Union, whether slavery shall be tolerated or excluded. If 
 the principal power does not authorize Coiii;ress to interfere with this subject,, one 
 wa}' or another, how can the mere incident, the right to establish a temporary 
 government, authorize anj- such interference? 
 
 I believe, furthermore, that when the Constitution of the UnitedStates was about 
 to be formed, in September, 1787, the wise men of that convention rejoiced that all 
 Territorial questions had be>-u settled, by compact between the States, in the old 
 Continental Congress ; for that Congress, where the States had equal votes, was 
 properly likened by Chief Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott case, to a meeting of 
 ambassadors. He therefore, and properU^ characterized the ordinance of 1787 as a 
 compact between the States themselves, as sovereigns, through their respective am- 
 bassadors. The authors of the Constitution left the question where they found it; 
 and it remained iu the same condition until November or December, 181',*, when the 
 Missouri controversj' arose. That related to territory acquired by the Louisiana 
 purchase, and subsequent, of course, to the ado])tion of our Federal Constitution. 
 The very fountains of bitterness seem to have been suddenly unsealed ; and all the 
 wisdom of our fathers, in excluding this subject from the Constitution, and thereby 
 disarming the Congress of the United States with regard to it, became of no avail. 
 The purest and best of our j)uhlic men believed that Congress had no axithority to 
 regulate the domestic or municipal atl'airs of a Territory, as against the will of the 
 citizens inhabiting it ; and I'rcsideiit Monroe actually wrote a messoge— ^the manu- 
 Bcript of whirh is yet in existence — returning the bill known as the Missouri Com- 
 promis ■ of March Gth, 18"2t>, without aiqircnal. Afterwards, at the suggestion of 
 Mr. Madison, by letter, that a veto eouldonly bejustitied in cases free of doubt, Mr. 
 Monroe yielded his own opinion; and this the more readily because, unconstitu- 
 tional as the act might seem, it carried into etl'ect an old agreement of partition 
 between the States themselves. 
 
 I confca.s, Mr. President, that but for extraordinary circumstances in our history, 
 it would have been a rash and inexcusable act to disturb that compromise ; but after 
 •we had aci|uired territ(jry from Mexico, the State of California, in 1848, compelled 
 Ui to adopt another rule. If we had prolonged the compromise line to the Pacifi,© 
 
9 
 
 ocean, as some desired, we should thereby have divided thot Stiil*; in twuin, and de- 
 stroj-fd the most notable instance of ''si|uiittiT soviTeiKnty " «mi nn-nid. To uvoid 
 such injustice, we abandoned tlie ancifnl idi-u of an i-.iual"|>artilioh of t.riilory, aa 
 between theSoutii and the North, and made Californiii herself the exuiii|ile in future 
 cases ; declaring that what her people had done, even without the assent of Cuiigrevi, 
 sliould be ratified and forever established. 
 
 The compromise of 185U, while it provides that the people of every Stnt.', when 
 they come to be admitted as a State, shall have the absolute ri^dit to exclude or 
 tolerate slavery, does in effect ignore that question duiing the whole ['eriod of Ter- 
 ritorial existence. It was left to the judicial authorities for ihcision, wliHther upon 
 the former laws of the Mexican Republic, or the acts of the Territorial legi^luture, 
 or upon local usage and custom, it was not intended that Congress sitould ever be 
 consulted. 
 
 I now come to the Kansas-Nebraska bill, which only proposed to render effectual 
 the principle declaimed in the Territorial acts of New iSIexico and Utah. Its first or 
 second section disposes of the whole subject of admitting Kansas and Nebraska into 
 the Union as States. It copies the very words of the Utah and .New .Mexico acts, 
 and promises them admission at the proper time, with or without slavery, at their 
 own option; but in a subsequent section, only applicable during the Territorial fona 
 of government. Congress abrogated the Missouri Compromise line because it had 
 ahead}' become inconsistent with the resolution that Congress would not touch the 
 question one way or another. The act of Congress approved March (1, 1820, woa 
 annulled, bat with au express declaration that the object was to leave the Territo- 
 ries us free as the Constitution of the United States would suffer them to be. Every 
 act of legislation emanating from authority outside of the Territories was expunged ; 
 they had i clean sheet — tabula ra^^a — as several orators aflii-med. And in order 
 more completely to erase whatever had been written upon the tablet, at any former 
 period, the Badger proviso declared that the repeal of the Missouri Compromise 
 should not be construed to revive s\.ny law, or usage, or custom, or regulation, 
 whether of French, or Spanish, or colonial origin. 
 
 But, sir, two other provisions were requisite. The ordinance of 1787 reserved to 
 Congress au authorit}* of revision, approval, or rejection, as to all acts of the Terri- 
 torial legislatures. I cannot say whether Congress ever exercised that authority, 
 but the instances of disapproval or rejection must have been few a d in extraordi- 
 nary circumstances. The provision had been copied in all our Territorial acts, but 
 remained a dead letter. We had not, for man}- years, interfered with the laws of 
 the Territories, and the pretence of it ought to have been abandoned. That provis- 
 ion was copied, nevertheless, improvidenUy, into the organical laws for New Mexico 
 and Utah, in September, 1850. What say you, my Southern friends, to this J New 
 Mexico and Utah have established slavery ; have given to property in slaves as ample 
 protection as you could wish ; and yet, by the terms of their organical acts, that le- 
 gislation is subject to the revision of Congress. I read from the seventh section of 
 the New Mexico act : 
 
 " All the laws passed by the Legislativ^Assembly and Governor shall be sobinitleil to the Con- 
 gress of the United Slates ; and if disapprOTed, shall be null and of uo eCfecl." 
 
 It is that to which I have drawn your attention. Senators, by the resolution under 
 debate. At the time of the Kansas- Nebraska bill, when this difficulty was suggested, 
 Mr. Weller, of California, moved that a similar reservation in that hill be stricken 
 out, and it was stricken out. And wherefore? Because Congress intended thereby 
 to disclaim any right of interference with the Territorial legislation. Moreover, by 
 the Kansas-Nebraska bill, provision was made to enable every person, niaster or 
 slave, to appeal a cause involving a claim of service, or of freedom, directly to the 
 Supreme Court of the United States. Need I ask you, Senators, the reason of this? 
 You knew there was a difference of opinion between the supporters of that very 
 bill Mr. Stuart, of Michigan, believed the Wilmot proviso to be constitutional; 
 his colleague, General Cass, did not. Many Senators believed that Congress had 
 power to protect slavery in the Territories," but no power to abolish or restrict it. 
 The bill was intended as a compromise of all these opinions; and you provided an 
 appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, in order that all questions of differ- 
 euce might be peaceably settled. Now, why does not that compromise yet stand? 
 
 I heard it said here, at the last session, that the Dred Scott case meant thus and 
 so. Well, sir, so many things have been affirmed in regard to the Dred Scott cose, 
 that I fear the commentaries will exceed, in bulk, the case itself. I hear.! it confi- 
 dently asserted in this Chamber, on the 23d of February last, that the Constitution 
 oi the United States secured to a master the right to carry his slave into a Territory, 
 
10 
 
 and there hold the slave, ad lihitam, in defiance of Territorial legislation ; hut the 
 Attorney (irneral tells us, in his late pnnipiilft, that "jSobohv" ever claimed .-ueh 
 a doctrine. Gentlemen, 1 leave j^ou to the Attorney General. No 8nch proposilion 
 ■was hefore tlie court; was argued to the court; wa.s decided by the court; or oven 
 considered by tlie court in any shape or form ; and it is altogetiier iinposbible for 
 any man, with the slightest regard to his own reputation as a i.' wyor, to assert lliat 
 the Drcd .Scott case determines anything whatsoever as to the !in:its of Territorial 
 authority on this subject. In fact, one of the jinlges expressly declared tlin.t he 
 neither could, nor would, decide any question of the sort.* 
 
 At all events, if the Supreme Coui't has so decided, as you prelend, it will so de- 
 cide again. The case of Dred Scott did not ai-ise upon any act of aTei-ritorial legis- 
 lature, but upon an act of Congress. Therefore, when the act of a Tevritniial legis- 
 lature shall have come before the Supreme Court for adjudication, you mav well 
 consent, as I consent, to abide the decision. Whatever that decision may be — wiiether 
 it shall, or shall not, correspond with n\\ opinion — 1 say here, both as a Sf vator and 
 as a citi/.cn, the decision must be carried into effect. We cannot live in nea<e, for 
 an hour, with any other doctrine. It will never do to say that if the Supretne (lourt 
 should decide in our favor, we will enforce the decision, but otherwise will not. It 
 is of more importance to us all, to the community at large, to the cause of good gov- 
 ernment everywhere, that a judgment pronounced b}- the appropriate tribunal, should 
 be obeyed, cheerfully obeyed, than that the decision itself should be right. 
 
 If Senators otdy mean, therefore, that in case the Su])rerne Court of the United 
 States shoulil hereafter decide as they wi.^h, and the judgment of the Court should 
 be frustrated by the Territorial authorities, or bj' individuals, or coniljinations of in- 
 dividuals, tiiey will demand such legislation from Congress as may be requisite t,o 
 carry the judgment into effect, I have no controversy with them. 1 will not merely 
 agree to such legislation of that character as may be necessarj', but will employ the 
 Executive power of the Government, the Army, and the Navy, in addition. If that 
 be what you mean by intervention, or pi'otection, 1 am with you. If j'ou will even 
 state me a supposititious case, where the Territorial authorities, acting in bad faith, 
 not with a view to their internal advantage, but to accompli.sh some otlier result, 
 liave legislated unfairly in respect to one species of property, I will examine tiiat 
 case, and, if possible, correct the inequality or unfairness. We acted thus in July, 
 18.56, witii regard to Kansas. The first Legislature of that Territory enacted that 
 no man should vote, in any election, unless he would swear to support the fugitive 
 slave law. 1 thought it shameful for the first body of men elected as legislators', in 
 a Territory, to provide that none but their own friends should vote; and for tluxt 
 reason, as the record will show, I supported the famotts Gever amendment. I will 
 apply the same principle wherever an attempt is made, by a Territori'il Legislature, 
 to prevent immigration, or confiscate proj^erty, or commit any other fraud or out- 
 rage. Tiiese are acts not to be justified; but, so far as the authority of Congress ex- 
 tends, under the Constitution, to be corrected. 
 
 I will say, furthermore, that I do not object to the interference of Congress in the 
 Territories because 1 have any disposition to befriMnl the property of the iSorth, more 
 than the property of the South, in similar case.s. That is not the dithcult y \\ ith me. 
 The difficulty, in my mind, is the infirmity of Congressional power as to the whole 
 subject of property, northern and southern, in organized Territories. If any Senator 
 will write rne down the case in which it would be ])roper for Congress to enact a 
 law protecting the right of a master to the services of liis a[)i)rentice, or protecting 
 the right of property in a chattel, within an organized Territory, I will write down, 
 under him, that in a similar ease Congress ought to intervene for the protection of 
 propert}' in slaves. Therefore, if 1 rightly understand a resolution now before the 
 Legislature of Mississippi, I should not object to it. The resolution is in these words: 
 
 " /ifMilved by the LegUlnture of the State of ifixHssippi, That, under the Constitution of the 
 United States, ihe (iovernment erealed hy it oaiinot, nor pan any tribunal actinfj iitider its autlioiily, 
 whetlicr il t)C Icirislativu, executive, or judicial, witliia its u|)])ropriate sphere, justly withhold I'rom 
 
 * Mr .Justice Cami'kki.i.: " I admit that to mark the boundsfor the jurisdiction of the Government 
 of the United SlnlcM within the Territory, and of its power in respect to persons and thin-is within the 
 municipal subdivisions it has created, is a work of ilclicacy and diHieiilly. and, in a jrreat measure, is 
 beyond the cogni/.iinre of the juiliciary department of that (}i>vi'rniiienf. How n\uch municipal power 
 may be exercised by the peoplu of the Territory, before their adniissioii luthe Union, the courts of jus- 
 tice eannot ileeidc. This must depend, for the mo»l part, on jiolilieul considerations, which cannot 
 enter Into thedelermlnntion of a case of law or equity. I do not feel called upon todefiue tlie jurisdic- 
 tion of Congress. It is sufllcienl for Ihe decision of this case to .ascertain wliether tin' residuary sov- 
 erclffnty of the States or f>coplo h;i» been invaded liy the eiphth section of the act of March G, 1S20, 
 I have cileil, in ho far us il <'iinc('ruH tlie capacity mid xtdlwH of persona in the condition and circum- 
 ■lancca of the plaintiff and his family."— I'J Howard, .014, 51S. 
 
11 
 
 lie owners of slaves that adequate protection for their slnvo property to which owni-r* of property 
 if other Icinds are entitled, or which, from iu nutiiru, llicy iiuiy require to stcun' them in iu pos- 
 ession and enjoyment." 
 
 I repeat, fi-ankly, Miat I will give to that species of property sncli inotection, by 
 ict of Congress, evei'ywlicre, as Iwill give to any otlier Fpe.-i.'s of property ; never- 
 ,heless, in my opinion, Congress has no power of hx-nl or iniinieipal leirislation over 
 my of tlieiu. I do not say tiiat Congress cannot interfere with a iiigli iiand ; hut iifl 
 1 question of legislative power, of subjects to be controlled bv tis, T sliall object 
 Persistently, and to the end. Some States of tlie Union, and oven pome miinieipal 
 ^Governments, have provided that no man shall bring gunpowder within their limits, 
 ?-xcept under certain restrictions; but, unless my opinion l)e correct, a Territorifll 
 Legislature cannot even provide to that extent; because gunpowder is property, and 
 juch legislation is of an "unfriendly" character. So with reference to nrdent spirits, 
 ■iome of the New England States have enacted laws wliieh go far to destroy, or at 
 least impair, the right of property in them ; yet, according to the doctrine which I 
 Qow oppose, a Territorial Legislature cannot even re-enact the Maine liquor law. 
 
 If the Legislature of Mississippi mean that it is the duty of the Federal Onvern- 
 ment, as the governinent alike of slaveholding and non slavehr>ld)ntr States, to regard 
 ivith equal favor the property of the people in every State — to make no discrimina- 
 tion as against one, aiul in favor of another — to hold the scales of justice fairly be- 
 tween them, I adopt their resolution. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I will say to the Senator from Ohio, that to hold the scales of justice 
 equal, and to hold them so as to give adequate protection to all citizens in tlieir 
 rights of person and property, is exactly what the resolutions mean ; but, as I under- 
 Jtaud him, his doctrine would go to the extent of denying to the Federal Government 
 the power to create a Territorial government at all. 
 
 Mr. PUGH. I have not said that. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. You doctrine tends to that, if I understand you. 
 
 Mr. rUGII. I think not. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. If the Senator thinks we have power to create a Territorial gov- 
 jrnment, and to invest the Territorial government, as our agent, with functions 
 to protect persons and property in the Territories, the common property of the 
 United States, then he understands tlie resolutions properly to mean that the Gov- 
 ernment can be invested with functions to give ade(juate protection equally to all, 
 no discrimination against any. 
 
 Mr. PUGH. I repeat, sir, that I will make no discrimination; and if that be the 
 meaning of the Mississippi resolution, I have no objection to it. But I do not agree 
 that a Territorial Legislature is the mere agent of Congress. Who made it our 
 agent? Do we elect its members? Can we displace them? Sir, the Legislature 
 is the agent of the people of the Territory, as much as we are the agents of the 
 peoj)le whom we represent. The territorial government is, in one sense, a creature 
 of Congress, or rather of the Federal Government; and so is ever}- new State. We 
 passed a law authorizing the people of Minnesota to choose their delegates, and 
 form a State constitution — the same form of legislation, precisely, which we fipply 
 to Territorial organizations; but who ever pretended that this made the State of 
 Minnesota an agent of Congress ? Nor does it follow, in every case,' that a creature 
 may not enjoy other powers than its creator has conferred — powers derived from 
 another source, and guided by a different will. I believe that Territorial Legisla- 
 tures are agents of their own people ; that it is not for Congress ordinai-iiy to super- 
 vise their enactments ; that they exercise a clear right of self-government ; and if 
 any man eouiplaius of them, their acts, or oinissions, he must seek the judicial tribu- 
 nals with his complaint, if it be capable of judicial cognizance, or otherwise patiently 
 submit. I say, in addition, that whatsoever the judicial authorities decide, must be 
 carried into effect. 
 
 Mr. Davis. I would ask the Senator from Ohio where the Territorial Legisla- 
 ture gets its authority. Is it from the act of Congress, or is it from the will of the 
 people who inhabit the Territory, alone? 
 
 Mr. PUGH. It is chiefly from the will of the people inhabiting the Territory. 
 
 Mr. DxWlS. Then I would ask the Senator, further, why it is that he makes an 
 appropriation to pa}' members of the Territorial Legislature ; how it is that he in- 
 vests the Governor with a veto power over their acts; and how it is that he 
 appoints judges to decide upon the validity of their acts? 
 
 Mr. PUGH. I will endeavor to answer each of the Senator's questions. I appro- 
 priate money for the expenses of a Territorial government because it is cheaper to 
 
12 
 
 do that than to pay taxes on the property of the United States. We own the 
 greater part of the land in the Territories, and we pa}' no taxes for it. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Oh, but tiie Senator being from one of those States wliere this 
 Government was tlie proprietor of the land, must be familiar with the fact that, 
 aft;er the Stale of ( )hio was admitted, and had a Lesjislature of its own, a Legislature 
 of the people distinctly, they paid their own Legislature, though tiiis Government 
 still continued to be tiie proprietor of the laud. 
 
 Mr. PUGII. Yes, sir; but the Federal Government stipulated to give us five per 
 cent, of the net proceeds of all the lamls sold in our State for an indeliuite period. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Not to pay your Legislature. 
 
 Mr. PUGH. It was for general State purposes. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. No. 
 
 Mr. PUGIL Yes, sir, for internal improvements. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. It was a contract between tlie States and the Federal Government 
 that they would not tax land which belonged to the United States for a period after 
 its sale under the present cash system. It was a contract between the States and 
 the United States on those terms, we agreeing to pay the per ceiitage. 
 
 Mr. PUGIi. It amounts to the same thing at last. I say that the reason why 
 this Government has, from the beginning, paid the expenses of the Territorial 
 Legislatures, is because it was cheaper to do that than to pay taxes as a landed 
 proprietor; and certainly, no State ought to deny the liability of the Government 
 to such taxation, when, like Ohio and Mississippi, she has once insisted ujion it, at 
 the time of admission into the Union, and only relinquished the claim by an express 
 contract. 
 
 The Senatoi' asks me, in the next place, why I give a veto power to the Governor. 
 I would as lief he should not have it; but I can well understand the principle on 
 which it stands. Your territorial act, as I said last winter, is not an enabling act 
 to the people; it is a disabling act. You claim a general authority over the public 
 domain. You, at the beginning, own the larger part or all of the land. Yo'i throw 
 it open to cultiraii'jn ; j'ou say to the people of the States and from abroad: "Go 
 in here; we permit you to go; we permit you to acquire a title by the preemption 
 law, by the homestead law, by the donation law, or by direct purchase; and we 
 stipulate for the quiet possession of your lands, and for the security of j'our titles, 
 provided you will agree to certain terms which we have set down in the organical 
 act." What are those terms? "Ti>at you shall not tax the property of non residents 
 higher than that of residents; that you shall respect those great pririfiples con- 
 tained in the 13111 of Rights to the Constitution of the United States; and that you 
 shall so conduct your government and legislation as to bring yourselves, ultimately, 
 into the Union as a .State; that you will not wander off and make alliances with 
 other nations, or cease to be our colonies." These conditions are wiitten down in 
 the oi'ganical Uiw; and to secure their observance, by the people of the Tei-ritory, 
 a veto power — the power of the ancient tribune — is reservdl to the Government of 
 the United States. It is to prevent any infraction of the conditions. 
 
 Mr, DAVIS. The Senatoi' from Ohio will permit me to interrupt him once more. 
 He leaves out a very important |)rovi3ioii. T jis money was not given to the States 
 tu-erely for that cnnsideration, and for them to do as they pleased with it; but the 
 States having an interest inthe lands within the limits of the Stale where this sover- 
 eignty was to be erected, reseiwed from the eminent domain, which was about to 
 pass to the people of the State, certain rights and privileges, and imposed condi- 
 tions ou which this money was given. Amone; other considerations which he has 
 named, tiiere is one whicii he has omitted. An obligation was imposed on them to 
 uiuke roads leadiug to the State, and im[)rovements in the Stale, to accelerate the 
 sale of the public lands, which belonged to the United States. 
 
 Mr. Pb'GH. I do not doubt that the Government of the United States may have 
 been operated upon, to some extent, by that motive. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. But it is set forth as being for the purpose. It is declared in the act. 
 Mr. PU(JII. Suppose the (iiivernment of the United States did so declare; the 
 State of Ohio, upon the o'.her hand, claimed the right to tax the lands of the Fede- 
 ral Government withia her limits, and only surrendered that claim ui^on a stipula- 
 tion that five per cent, of the proceeds of "those lands, when sold, should be appro- 
 priated to State purposes. My colleague knows that the making of roads, in Ohio, 
 for the first twenty years, was an important element of our State policy; and the 
 five per cent, fund was in aid of that policy, as one of the purposes of the State gov- 
 ernment. Now, I say that the Government of the United Htntes, being the largest 
 landed proprietor in each Territory, avoids payment of taxes by means of a com- 
 
13 
 
 mutation ; or, in other words, it pays the Territorial Legislature, and tho Baluriea of 
 a few Territorial officers. 
 
 But I was speaking of the veto power. Tliat originates noliiing ; the fiovernor 
 can make no law ; can i)i'opose no law. The veto jxiwer is juirely ni'^nlive. If 
 the Governor sliould veto an act, the former law would stand. In no event can llie 
 power be used to establish or exclude slavery. If the Territorial Lcginlal urc wlionid 
 pass an act to allow slavery, and the Governor should veto it, what would he the 
 ertect? Simply, there would be no law, at all, upon tlie subject. Sujipose the 
 Territorial Legislature should pass a law excluding tlavery, and the (Jovernor should 
 Teto that, it would have the same effect; they would be without any law. All 
 this pretext, on either side, that the veto power of the CJovcrnor, in a Territory, 
 can touch the question of slavery, one way or another, is absurd. 
 
 Now, as to the judges. Do we not appoint judges in the State of Mis.si8fiippi ; 
 federal judges, attorneys, and marshals? Have we not a Circuit or District (,'oiirt 
 of the United States in every State? What more have we provided for the Terri- 
 tories? We have appointed judges, attorneys, and marslials of the United Stutea 
 for the Territories; and have authorized the Territorial Legislatures, foi- tlieir own 
 convenience, to invest the Courts of the United States witli such juri»dietion of 
 causes, between individuals, as they shall find expedient. At the same time, the 
 Teri-itoi'ies have count}- courts and judges; appoint their own justices of the peace 
 or magistrates, and constables. 
 
 Sir, 1 tell the Senator from Mississippi, furthermore, that wlien he has reduced a 
 Territorial government to a mere agency of Congress — when he has shown that Con- 
 gress exercises all the power of a Territorj-, indirectly, thi'ough an agent — power 
 "which could as well be exercised directly — for that must follow ; wlien lie has in- 
 vested Congress with local authority to that extent, he has not only broken 
 through the Constitution of the United States, in one of its express prohibitions, 
 but has overridden the decision of the Supreme Court in Dred Scott's case. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Will the Senator state the express prohibition that will be broken? 
 
 Mr. PUGIL Yes, sir ; the prohibition is that Congress shall not exercise that 
 kind of legislative authority excej>t within a district of ten miles square, ^'owhere 
 else can it be exercised by Congress, directly or indirectly, according to the Consti- 
 tution. Did our fathers cautiously limit Congress, in the exercise of sucli authority, 
 to a district of ten miles square; arid then, in the vast Territories of the Union — 
 larger than the area of the original States — can Congress exercise an imperial, arbi- 
 trary, sovereign, unlinuted power of legislation ? I say that the Supreme Court, in 
 Dred Scott's case, decided against the Senator's position. The Court said that the 
 clause to which I have alluded, just now, amounted to a prohibition of such 
 authority, by Congress, in the Tei'ritories. Therefore, if a Territorial government 
 be what the Senator claims, it is unconstitutional. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I do not know that I understand the Senator. Does he say that 
 Congress has unlimited power within ten miles square? That the Constitution con- 
 fers power of unlimited legislation within ten miles Sfjuare, and prohibits it from 
 exercising such power elsewhere ? 
 
 Mr. PUGIL 1 will get the book, and will read it to the Senator ; he can see for 
 himself. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I think I have read it before. 
 
 Mr. PUGIL I think, when the Senator has heard the langnage, he will find it to 
 be as I have said : 
 
 " To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten 
 miles sqttare) as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become Ihe 
 Beat of the Government of the United blrites" 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President 
 
 Mr. PUGIL Let me read it all : 
 
 " and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the TA-jiislature of tho 
 State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and 
 other needful buildings." 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Now, Mr. President, from what the Senator has read, he shows his 
 
 argument to be altogether unfounded upon the Constitution. Instead of unlinuted, 
 
 he reads exclusive. Exclusive of what? Of any other authority over the ten 
 
 1 miles square ceded for the seat of Government ; not uidimited power; far from 
 
 it — not imperial, but restricted by the grants of the Constitution — exclusive only. 
 
 1 Then, again, so far from its being confined to ten miles square, before he finished 
 
 1 reading — and he was anxious to finish it all — he read : " arsenals, forte, and dock- 
 
u 
 
 yards." Are they within the ten miles square? If not, on what, I ask, does his 
 argument rest^ 
 
 Mr. PUGH. The Senator does not seem to me to have altered his former position ; 
 and he certainly has not disturbed mine in the least. I used the phrase "unlimited 
 authority" wi>en I spoke of the Territories; and I say his doctrine leads to the 
 monstrous conclusion that, whereas the exclusive legislation of Congrpss is limited 
 to particular places by the Constitution, yet in the Territories of the I'nited States 
 as the}- existed when the Constitution was siirned, in the lai'trest portion oi' the domaia 
 over wliich the Constitution extended, the power of Congress is not only exclusive, 
 but unlimited, arbitrary, and subject to no control. He is driven to that. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. If the Senator from Ohio will permit me, I will tell him that the 
 only monstrosity I see is that of absurdity in his argument. He reads here, with 
 great emphasis, a ^^rant of power over ten miles square to be given fur a seat of 
 Government, as though that had anything to do with the territory, and then jumps 
 to conclusions not founded on what I sai<l, and equally unfounded in the article from 
 which he reads. 
 
 Mr. PUGH. I say, sir, that it is a prohibition to the Congress of the United States 
 to exercise anj- such authority except in the places specified ; and the Senator may 
 attempt, in vain, to escape from it. I say, also, that the Supreme Court decided 
 thus in Dred Scott's case. There 1 leave the Senator as to that. 1 did not think 
 it necessai-y to enumerate arsenals and dock-yards. I spoke of an extent of country, 
 of ten miles Sfpiare. But, according to the Senator, if I undei'stand his intei'rup- 
 tion — and I supposed, when he interru])ted me, that lie did it to assume the negative 
 of my proposition — according to the doctrine which I oppose. Congress can exercise 
 even greater authority- in the Territories of the United States than in the District of 
 Columbia. I say, therefore, when you have made a Territorial legislature the mere 
 agent of Congress, your Territorial government is forbidden by the Constitution in 
 express terms. You cannot establish any such government; you have no right to 
 do it. When, however, you stand upon the doctrine which I have maintained, 
 namely, that each Territory is a portion of the public domain, to be hi>reafter formed 
 into a State, and that the organieal act is a stij)ulation with the people there assem- 
 bled from various States or other countries — a stipulation in the nature of a contract 
 between them and us, bv whicii we agree to acknowledge their right of self-govern- 
 ment, and in consideration of our protection against foreign nations, and of the privi- 
 lege of admission into the Union at a future time, they agree to certain conditions 
 therein expressed; when j'ou have made a Territorial government of that character, 
 you may well claim the power to establish it as an incident to the power to admit 
 a new State into the Union. Every attempt to turn away from this constitutional 
 question for the advantage of one section or another; every pretext, because a man 
 does not b(;lieve, as some contidently assert here, a Territorial legislature to be the 
 agent of Congress, tliat he is therefore making discriminations between the [)roperty 
 of the South and of the Xorth, is a mere device to hide the lack of argument. 
 
 Mr. President, the opinions which I have expressed on the subject of Territorial 
 governments, are not onl\' in accordance with the Constitution of the United States, 
 and with the principles established in Dred Scott's case, but they accord with the 
 teachings of the Deuiocralic Kepublican party in its purest and best time. If I un- 
 derstand the doctrine maintained upon the other side, it is, that inasnmch as the 
 Government of the United States owns the public lands, and ho4ds them in trust for 
 the people of all the States, that confers on the Government a right of immediate, 
 local, mu!iicipal regulation; in other words, there is a sort of feudal right in Con- 
 gress with respect to the Territories and their settlement. Well, sir, 1 now read 
 from a much wiser man than myself: 
 
 " The reason for intruslinj; Congress with the power of admitting new States, was not to enlar.se 
 the j)owers of iliat body, nor to bestow on it a species of leirislation purely looal, but to avoid tlie 
 inconveniences which would have resulted Ironi the reservation of the right by the parties \ylio hold 
 it. Hence, as a mere naUcd power or trust was conferred, there exists a precise desoription, in a 
 few words, of the body politic to be admitted, and also of the compact of which it was to become a 
 member. 
 
 " J^ew States were to be admitted into 'Wm Union.'' I do not discern any words which could 
 more exactly have described parties and rights. The new parties were to bo the same as the old, 
 and the rights received were to be those conferred or secured by 'this Union.' It', tli.reforc, 'this 
 I'nion' do'es not empower Congress to legislate evclusively in relation to the internal eivil govern- 
 ment of each old State, it cannot so legislate as to those admitted. In fact, "this I mow ' would never 
 have existed, had such a power bceu proposed by the Constitution. The people of no one State 
 cliiimed any power of local regulation over unolher. They neither thought of, nor <loes there exist 
 any compnet conveying such a power to a majority of States. There existed no primitive power by 
 whi'ili om- >tate, or several, posses.scd a right io form a constitution or to m\».<-\ internal laws for the 
 government of another State; and it is a sound principle, that a delegated power cauuot exceed Ih* , 
 power from which it was derived. 
 
13 
 
 " A power in Congress of annexing conditions to the admission of Stales into Dm Union, wonl J bo 
 in its nature nioii:irchicaI, and analojious to tlie feudal sysioni. Chiefs estnblislieil llmt system upon 
 the priiici|)le that conquests were made for Iheni, and llius ol)tained tlio right of annexini; eonill- 
 tions to ftraiits. Rut with us, conquests are made for the conimuiiity, and not for l"oM|;rcs» ; and iho 
 principle which susUiined the right of annexing conditions, in the case »( feu<lul ddels, tails in the 
 case of Couorress. The community, therefore, prescrihed tlui rule hy which con(|u.-red lands wero 
 to be erected into States, in doing which they have not invested Congress witli a power of annexlnij 
 feudal conditions to this disposition. 
 
 " Hut this feudal power of annexing conditions to the settlement of a conquered or acquired li-rrl- 
 torv, '.V ill. fx..vi-nii;ii r,! of il;." country making the iiciiuisitiou. has even been ex|.lodeil as Ivranni- 
 c:i';''M,tii li;?n' and in Kiiinnl One of our principles in the colonial state was, that emigrants to 
 such leniLorits carried willi liiem ttieir native rights. The colonies claimed the rights of Kngllsh- 
 men, and not only obtained them, but liave I hope greatly extended them. Hut this would not bo 
 the case if our emigrant-i should he subjected to a <iiminution of their native rights by the ploasuro 
 of C'lngrcss. All of them enjoyed the right of forming local conslitutiims and laws bil'ore their emi- 
 gration. If Congress cannot legislate over the States from whence they removed, and may do sc) by 
 annexing conditions to a trust over that which the emigrants from tliese States maj create. It is ob- 
 vious that those citizens must have lost some very important native rigliis, by an emigration from 
 one part of our country to another. If the colonists emigrating from England were corned in assert- 
 ing, by force of arms, that they brought with them all the rights conferred by tlie English system of 
 government, our emigrants may also contend that they carry with them all "the rights conferred by 
 our system. Amoug these, the unconditional right to make their own local consiiiutions ami laws, 
 withnut bein'X snl)jec; to :'i:y .Mmiitions imposed by an extraneous authority, has been the most im- 
 portant, aud universally exercised by every atate in the Union." 
 
 Probably tlie Senator from Virginia will recognize the quotation. 
 
 Mr. MASOX. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. PUGll. That is from John Taylor, of Caroline. It is his opinion as to the 
 powpr of Congi-e-^s on this subject. And now, sir, inasmuch as the Senator from 
 California has deehvred that any person who denies the authority of Congress to 
 control the Territories at will, is untit to be trusted in the chair of the Cutnniittee 
 on Territories, or to be admitted to any place of distinction in the Democratic party ; 
 iua-snracb .is the f;'-^:;:ito: from Georgia has declared that all who entertHin 8uch 
 opinio s are unsound, and if not corrupt, politically, at least coiruptible — ready to 
 join the Abolitionists in assaulting the rights of the South, and inflicting injustice 
 upon her, I will here deliver a counter proclamation. I say that a grave attempt 
 has been made by those Senators aud otliers, within the last eighteen months, to 
 interpolate into the creed of the Democratic part}- a doctrine to which the party never 
 assented, and which the fathers of the party alwaj-s repudiated; a doctrine which 
 utterly violates alike the rights of the States and of the people. It is unmitigated 
 Federalism thrust into our very faces; and although you may be successful with it. 
 in arranging the committees of the Senate, I warn you, Senators, that it will never 
 Fueeeed c'spwherp. 
 
 Mr. Prcsideiit, the Democracy of Ohio, and of all the northwestern States, have 
 obej-fed, with scrupulous fidelity, each and every requirement of the Federal Con- 
 stitution. They believe in the faithful and prompt extradition of fusitives from 
 service and labor. They consider that clause in the Constitution an essential ele- 
 ment of compact between the States; and whenever they have had the power, in 
 their respective States, they have removed the obstructions placed in the way of 
 executing the fugitive slave law by their political opponents. In October, 1855, 
 the Republican party, so called, elected a 'majority of the Ohio Legislature; and 
 that Legislature enacted several statutes, the manifest intention of which was to 
 prevent the reclamation of fugitive slaves. The last Legislature, elected by the 
 Democratic party, swept all these enactments from the statute book. We believe it 
 to be the duty of the people, in every State, to abstain from interfering with the 
 domestic and local concerns of the people in other States ; and there is but one sen- 
 timent, so far as I know, among the Democracy of the Northwest, in regard to the 
 late nefarious conspiracy to invade the State of Virginia, and set on foot a servile 
 insurrection in her nudst, or atte- pt a subversion of her laws and government. 
 They will go as far in that direction as I indicated on the second day of the session ; 
 will exett every power conferred upon the Federal Government, by the Constitu- 
 tion, ill order to protect the people and government of each State against invasion 
 or interruption from other States or countries. Lastly, sir, they will adhere, with 
 perfect f.iith, to that solemn covenant between the Democracy of the South aud the 
 Democracy of the North contained in the Kansas-Nebraska bill. 
 
 At the instigation of southern gentlemen, and in order to signalize our devotion 
 to mere principle, notwithstanding the certainty of defeat in our own section, we 
 struck out of existence the 3Ii?souri Compromise line ; and now, wl.c:. .-. ^ Lave lived 
 down opposition to that — when we know that the Uepublican party dares not, in the 
 north west'U'u States, at least, plant itself on the Wilmot jiroviso ; when we begin to look 
 with hope to a triumphant vindication of our long service aud many sacridces, we find 
 
16 
 
 that gentlemen nf, the South, for their own convenience nnd personal success, desire 
 to revei'se every thing our party has done for the hist sixteen years, and once more 
 plunge Congress and the whole country into another vortex of terrible excitement. 
 Well, Mr. President, for one, it is impossible, with my convictions of duty, to become 
 a participant in this new enterprise; I cannot, and Twill not, at any hazard. I have 
 not questioned other gentlemen heretofore because of tlieir opiinons; I do not even 
 object to the Senator from Missouri, [^^r. Oreen,] as chairman of the Committee on 
 Territories, although his opinions dilfer from mine; but I now complain of this at- 
 tempt to establish here, in the Senate, a test of soundness or unsoundness never 
 adopted by the Democratic party in general convention, and which, in my judg- 
 ment, never will be adopted. 
 
 I have detained the Senate much longer than I intended ; but T must indulge one 
 other remark. These distractions, which have been provoked without cause, In the 
 Democratic party, are of the utmost injury to the Government of the United States, 
 as well as to the peace of the country at large. If we can return to our old agree- 
 ment, stand upon our old ways, abide in our old faith, and discard all those ques- 
 tions which now divide our part}-, and are made excuses for the proscription of this 
 or that candidate, we shall be, once more, the proudest, the strongest, the greatest 
 political organization that ever existed. I heard an honorable Senator from South 
 Carolina [Mr. Chesxut] saj-, last week, that the Xorth must preserve the Union, if 
 it is to be preserved. 1 sa^- to him that it is for the South to preserve, or to destroy, 
 the only party which is competent to maintain the Union in any circumstances. 
 
 Mr. President, the speeches delivered in this Chamber, since the first day of the 
 session, as well as the temper of proceedings elsewhei'e — in the other libu?e of 
 Congress, in the Legislatures of some of the States, iu assemblies of the people — 
 ought to admonish us, in all earnestness, that we have fallen upon evil times. De- 
 fiance has been given by the South to the North, and by the North to the South; 
 threats to dismember the Confederacy, and threats to maintain it by force of arms. 
 I do not question the sincerity of Senators in what they have said, nor presume to 
 censure them; nevertheless, unfashionable as the sentiment seems to have become 
 in Congress, during the last four or five j'ears, T make bold to declare it as mv sen- 
 timent lliat Disunion is no remedy nor palliative to the South, or to the Noi-th, in 
 any case whatsoever ; that no catastrophe could be more fatal to both sections, and 
 to each and all of the .States, except that eminently republican, patriotic, and frater- 
 nal dispensation proclaimed by the Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. DooLmr-E,] last 
 week — namely, the appliance of gunpowder, swords, bayonets, and the halter, by 
 the people of one State to the people of another. 
 
 I uphold and cherish the Union for its own sake — I repeat, sir, for its own sake, 
 I uphold it as the best form of government within the States and over them ; the 
 most likely to secure their inde|)endence, happiness, and glory in the future, as it 
 has secured their independence, their happiness, and their glory in the seventy years 
 of its recorded history — years of peace and of war — years of trouble within, and of 
 danger from without — years of dissension, if you will — dissension of States, and sec- 
 tions, and parties — but j-ears of unexampled and matchless achievement in everything 
 that can render a nation free and prosperous, and magnificent. I uphold the Union as 
 a form of government containuig within itself, apart from all other eonsiderati<ins, a 
 recuperative virtue ade(piate to the redress of every grievance or misfortune. While 
 the States continue to clasp their arms around each other, and to invoke the memo- 
 ries of the mighty dead whose genius, in council or in action, established them as a 
 Commonwealth, I feel assured that every infraction of the Constitution by States or 
 by individuals — every aggression upon the rights of one State by another — every act 
 of disorder, and turbulence, and even unkindness can be, and at length will be, suc- 
 cessfully remedied. 
 
 Others may speculate, as the Senator from California (5Tr. Gwin) has done, boldly 
 and confidently, as to the comparative strength or security of the southci-n States, 
 or the northern States, when separated from their present relation ; wliat will be 
 their respective facilities for commerce with foreign countries, for manufactures, for 
 agricultural and mechanical improvement; but, to my humble apprehension, of all 
 those gifts which our Uidon has enclosed, not even the pale reflex of Hope will 
 remain after the sacred jar shall have been rashly opened and violateil. America 
 may become the Germany of the New World, mourning her lo.st nationality, age 
 upon age as one who mourns for the dead; or, perchance, like another Italy, seek 
 and strive convulsively, for centuries, to cement, even by the blood of tyrants, the 
 maimed and distracted members of her once faultless beauty. 
 
 Your separate Confederacies, North or South, East or West, have no charms for me.