EW 
 
HOLLINGER 
 
 pH8.5 
 
 MILL RUN F3-1543 
 
NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OP 
 
 :)■ 
 
 HON. A; Gr BROWN, OF MISSISSIPPI, 
 
 'X' ' 
 
 SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, FEBRUARY 24, 1854. 
 
 The Senate having under consideration the bill 
 to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kan- 
 sas — 
 
 Mr. BROWN said: 
 
 Air. Pkksidevt: It has been my determination, 
 from the beginning of tiiis discussion, not to par- 
 tici|iate in it to any considerable extent, and i am 
 not now about to depart from that determination. 
 I will occupy the floor but a few minutes; and 
 Senators who desire to speak may be assured that 
 they will have an opportunity of doing so this 
 evening, if they clioose. 
 
 There are one or two points in the bill on 
 which I will present my views briefly} and there 
 are two or three topics involved incidenially in 
 the debate to which 1 will address a remark or 
 two, and ihen I shall have done. 
 
 The bill proposes to annul, or, in stronger 
 phrase, to repeal, the Missouri compromise; and 
 to this extent it meets my cordial approbation. 
 
 I am not the advocate of tins refieal because of 
 any confident expectation that slavery is ever to 
 find a resting place in these Te>riti:ries. Slavery 
 may or may not go there. The inclination of my 
 mind is that it never will. But this is a topic not 
 to be discussed here, and therefore 1 pass it by 
 ■without further remark. 
 
 The Alissouri compromise ought to be annulled 
 or repealed, because it has been, from the begin- 
 ning, without authority under the Constitution. 
 For more than thirty years this legislation has 
 stood upon the statute-book, a blot upon its jus- 
 tice, and a mockery of the Constitution, which it 
 violates. 
 
 All the arguments against the constitutionality 
 of the Wilmot proviso stand with equal force 
 against the constitutionality of the Missouri com- 
 promise. It is needless for me to argue that, if 
 Congress had no power under the Constitution to 
 exclude slavery from the territories acfjuired from 
 Mexico, it had none to exclude it from those ac- 
 quired from France; or, to state the proposition 
 a little different, if Congress has no power to es- 
 tablish an arbitrary line and assert its constitu- ' 
 
 tional power over slavery on one side of it, it has 
 none to establish it and assert its power on the 
 other side. 
 
 If Congress had the power in 1820 to exclude 
 slavery from all the territory north of 36^^ 30', II 
 had the same power in 1850 to exclude it from all 
 the territory south of that line. And, per contm, 
 ' if it did not have the power to exclude it south Df 
 the line in 1850, then it did not have thepowerlh' 
 I 1830 to exclude it north of the line. 
 j The venerable Senator from Michigan [Mr. 
 I Cass] deserves great credit for his masterly efforts 
 ; to correct a wide-spread, and, at the North, almost 
 universal error, on this point. Thousands 1 know 
 I there are who date their convictions on this sub- 
 ject from the delivery of the great speech of that 
 j Senator, in which he reviewed with so much 
 I power the arguments to sustain the proviso. I 
 do the Senator no more than justice, when I say 
 i his arguments have never been answered — like 
 ' fine gold, they have grown brighter as they have 
 been rubbed. 
 
 j As a friend of the Constitution, I thank the 
 ' Senator for his eflbrts in this behalf. He proved 
 ' the unconstitutionality of the proviso; and in 
 I doing that, he established beyond dispute the 
 unconstitutionality of the Missouri compromise. 
 For, I repeat, Congress had no more power to ex- 
 i chide slavery north of 360 30' in 1820 tha>i it had 
 ! to exclude it south of that line in 1850. 
 
 But it has been said that the Missouri compro- 
 mise is a contract — the eloquen t Senator from Mas- 
 sachusetts used the stronger term — he called it a 
 compact; and on this ground, he and others have 
 undertaken to defend it. It was neither the one 
 thing nor the other. It was not a contract, nor 
 was it a compact. If it was a contract, who were 
 the parties to it? To make a valid contract, th' re 
 must be parties able to contract, willing u con- 
 tract, and they must actually have contracted. I 
 must go further, and say, there must be something 
 given on one side, and something received on the 
 other. In all, every one of these esisentials, the 
 transaction before us is deficient. I s^iould under- 
 
 / 
 
C- 
 
 ^J^ 
 
 ^\ 
 
 take to maintain by inefrasible proof, if I had 
 engaged to discuss this question thorouglily, first, 
 that tiiere were no contracting parties; second, 
 that at least one of those whom you claim as a i 
 party had no will to contract, and did not contract; 
 and tliird, that no consideration passed from one 
 party to the other, whereby the contract, if made, 
 was rendered binding. 1 
 
 Shall it be contended, furtlier, that Missouri j 
 was a party to this pretended contract? It has 
 already been said Missouri was admitted into , 
 the Union as a slave Slate, on condition that ' 
 slavery should be forever prohibited north of 36° > 
 30'; and the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. 
 Shmker] declared with .great bitterness that thej 
 South, with the consideration in her pocket, now \ 
 comes forward to repudiate the contract. Sir, had , 
 liot Missouri the right, the constitutional right, 
 to come into the Union with or without slaveryi, j 
 as she, in her own written constitution, should , 
 prescribe.' I have thought that even rampant 
 fanaticism did not deny this. Then how could 
 vou, in derogation of her rights under the Consti- 
 tution, demand of Missouri a price for her admis- 
 sion into the Union.' 
 
 But, sir, allowing that Missouri undertook to 
 buy her way into the Union — an admission that 
 can only be made for the snke of the argument — 
 and that for this purpose she bargained for the 
 exclusion of slavery in perpetuity from all terri- 
 tory north of 3GC 30', what does it amount to.' 
 Nothing; absolutely nothing. Missouri had juris- 
 diction within her limits, and not one inch beyond. 
 She had no right to buy an advantage or a privi- 
 lege for herself by surrendering that wliich did 
 r.ojt belong to her. As well might the tenant or 
 rightful owner of a house bargain with a robber, 
 that if he would let him alone, he might plunder 
 his neighbors with impunity. If he bought his 
 own peace, well ; but certainly he could impose no 
 obligation on his neighbors to submit to the plun- 
 dering. 
 
 If we put this transaction on the basis of con- 
 tract between the North and the South, it is not 
 more capable of defense. Here you have to create 
 jiarties, ideal parties, before you commence the 
 bargain. To say this is a contract between the 
 North and the South, is to set up in the imagin- 
 ation things that do not exist in fact. There is no 
 separate North, no separate South — has not been, 
 and I hope never will be. We are but one, and 
 it takes two to make a contract. If we had a 
 Northern Union and a Southern Union, the two 
 might contract. But, as we are but one, the first 
 great essential to a binding contract is wanting, to 
 wit: parties capable of contracting. 
 
 I do not know that I can better conclude what 
 I have to say on this point than by introducing 
 an extract from a speech delivered by myself on 
 this s/tibject in the House, June 3, 1848. It will 
 be fa^nd at page G4.5, Appendix to the Congres- 
 sional Globe, of that year. I said: 
 
 " We sliall be told, that by the act ofM.arch 6, 1820, and 
 the ieveral succeeditij; acts adniitiing Missouri into the ■ 
 irn*)n, commonly called the Missouri compromise, the , 
 povi^f^r in Compress to a limited e.\tent, to exclude slavery 
 Horn VTcrrilory, was conceded. The argument is neither [ 
 just iioVviund ; but its introduction here gives me an op- i 
 portunity^which f eagerly embrace, of expressing my opin- 
 ions of that\cnmpromise. It has been the theme oi^ many , 
 eloquent iKvAangues ; and of all the thousand orators who i 
 have thrown fesarlands on the brow of its great author, or 1 
 strewn his palh^way with richest flowers, none have apos- i 
 
 trophised more eloquently than those whose theme has been 
 (this far-famed Missouri compromise." 
 
 You will observe that in this speech I fell into 
 a very common error, or, at least, what is now 
 claimed to be an error, of attributing the author- 
 ship of the Missouri compromise to Mr. Clay. I 
 proceeded: 
 
 "But, notwithstanding this, it stands out 'a fungus, an 
 e.xerescence, a political monstrosity.' It was tlie first, 
 greatest, and most fatal error in our legislation on the sub- 
 ject nf slavery. It violated at once the rights of one half 
 the Union, and flagrantly outraged the Federal Constitution. 
 It undertook to abrogate the constitutional privileges of one 
 lialf of the States, and, without any adequate or sufficient 
 consideration , to surrender the rights of every slaveholder in 
 the Union. The compromise has been called a contract. 
 But a contract, to be binding, must be mutual in its obliga- 
 tions; there must be something given on one side, and 
 something received on the other. By this compromise — 
 this misnamed contract — the slave Stalas irave up their right 
 of settlement north of the parallel 36° 30'; but the non- 
 slaveholding States did not surrender their right to settle 
 south of that line. The free States have all the rights they 
 ever had. The South gave up everything, and received 
 nothing. North of 36° .30' no slaveholder darego with his 
 slaves; south every northern man may settle with whatever 
 cliattels he possesses. Tne compromise is wantingin all the 
 elements of mutuality which render a compact binding, and 
 is therefore void. This Thirtieth Congress has no riglit to 
 surrender, by gift or barter, the political rightsof onehalf of 
 the Confederacy, or even one State of the Union ; and yet 
 this Congress has all the constitutional powers that be- 
 longed to the Sixteenth Congress, which enacted the com- 
 promise." 
 
 I pass from this subject to the consideration o 
 the amendment offered by the mover of the bill, 
 [Mr. Douglas,] and now, by the vote of the Sen- 
 ate, become a part of the bill itself. The phrase- 
 ology is not such as I would have chosen, and yet, 
 having scrutinized it, I am willing to sanction it; 
 indeed, I have sanctioned it by my vote. If it 
 had suited the purposes of others to allow it to 
 stand without comment, it would have suited mine. 
 But I will not sit still, and allow an interpretation 
 to be given to words that have received the sanc- 
 '' tion of my vote, altogether at variance with what 
 ' I intended when I gave the vote. From day to 
 day we have heard Senators, in terms more or 
 j less distinct, declare, without limitation, that this 
 bill gives the people of the Territories the right to 
 exclude slavery. In plain English, that it recog- 
 nizes the doctrine of '"squatter sovereignty," as 
 I this new theory has been termed. 1 do not think 
 so, and if I did, I would withhold from the bill the 
 sanction of nay vote. I utterly deny and repudiate 
 ; this whole doctrine of squatter sovereignty. But, 
 before I proceed to an examination of it, I must 
 [lause to consider another feature embodied in 
 the amendment proposed by the honorable Sena- 
 tor, the mover of this bill. 
 
 ' The amendment declares that the act of 1820, 
 commonly called the Missouri compromise, is 
 inconsistent with the legislation of 1850, known 
 as the compromise of that year; and is, therefore, 
 declared inoperative and void. Iff did not know 
 the astuteness of the Senator who drew up this 
 amendment, [Mr. Dougl.\s,J and how unlikely 
 he would be to run into such an error, I should 
 think there was an inaccuracy in deducing the 
 conclusion that the legislation of 1820, in reference 
 to one Territory, is inoperative and void, because it 
 is inconsistent with the legislation of 1850, in re- 
 ference to another Territory. It is very certain 
 that the legislation of 1820, as regards the territory 
 north of 30° 30', was inconsistent with the same 
 legislation, as regards the territory south, and yet 
 
both stood, and have continued to stand, for thirty 
 yet\rs^ind more. It is equally certain, that if Con- 
 gress has the power to exclude slavery from the 
 Territories, and the |inwer is simply permissive, 
 and nut mamhitory, (as it certainly is not,) under 
 the Consliiution, then Congress may exercise it in 
 one place, and forlienr its exen-ise in another; and 
 the failure to exercise it in N'tliraska, fcr example, 
 would not render inoperative and void its exercise 
 in Kansas. 
 
 If the act of 18C0, that excluded slavery from 
 all the territory north of llfiO 3U', was constitu- 
 tional, it may stand, and it is lo(^ically inaccurate 
 to say that it hecumes inoperative and void simply 
 because the legislation of leifjU failed to exclude 
 slavery south of that line. IJut if, on the other 
 hand, the act of IS'JO was unconstitulioniil, and 
 those of l>^'){) hrouijht hack the Government to its 
 true constitutional position, then it would he logi- 
 cally correct to say that the act of IHCO (lieing 
 unconstitutional) is inconsistent with the acts of 
 1650, (that have restored the Government to its 
 true constitutional position,) and, therefore, the 
 act of 1820 is inoperative and void. Inoperative 
 and void, not because of its admittinjj; or excluding 
 slavery, but inoperative and void liecause it is in- 
 consistent with the restoration of the Government 
 to its rightful constitutional position. 
 
 I take it for granted, Mr. President, that the 
 able and learned Senator [Mr. Douglas] meant 
 what the language of his amendment implies, to 
 wit: that the legislation of 18.")0 settled tiie great 
 constitutional principle that Congress could not 
 exclude slavery from a Territory; and that inas- 
 much as the act of 1820 undertook to do that thing, 
 it is in conflict with a great constitutional princi- 
 ple, and , therefore, for that reason , it is inoperative 
 and void. 
 
 I may be mistaken in my reasoning — I may be 
 mistaken in what is meant by the mover of this 
 amendment. But there is one thing in which I am 
 not mistaken — the arnendment declares the Mis- 
 souri compromise inoperative and void. This is as 
 it should be. It squares exactly with my notions 
 long since expressed of the constitutional obliga- 
 tions of the Government, and I will not quarrel 
 with a good act, even though a bad reason may be 
 given for its performance. 
 
 I will not detain the Senate on points of so little i 
 practical importance as this. The conclusion at 
 which we arrive covers the practical issue, eflects 
 the practical result, and whether we reach that con- 
 clusion by a sound course of reasoning is a thing 
 of little consequence to our constituents. I voted 
 for tlie amendment, believing that the premises jus- 
 tineti the conclusions. But, if I had tlionght other- 
 Wise 1 should have voted as I did. The declara- 
 tion ihtit the Missouri compromise is henceforth 
 to become inoperative and void, comn^ends the 
 measure to my warm and cordial support. 
 
 1 pass to the consideration of another point, and 
 in doing so I respectfully invoke the attention of 
 the distinguished Senator from Michigan, [Mr. 
 Cass.] That Senator is the acknowledired author 
 of the doctrine known in common political par- 
 lance as squatter sovereignty. From this doctrine 
 I have always dissented, and I dissent from it to- 
 day. Accustomed, as 1 have long been, to regard 
 with reverence whatever emanates from that dis- 
 tinguished and venerable Senator, and feeling, at 
 all times, a painful reluctance to assume a position ^ 
 
 at variance with him, 1 have, nevertheieeB, found 
 myself constrained, after mature investigation, to 
 conclude that on this point he is wrong. 
 
 l-'roin what source, let me ask the Senator, does 
 he derive the power, or the right of the peo[»ie of 
 a Territory, to exclude slavery .- Conirress does not 
 confer the power — that is certain. 'I'he Senator 
 has made more arguments — and better ones — than 
 any living statesman tr) prove that Congies.s has 
 no right or power, .under the Con.Ntitution, to ex- 
 clude slavery from aTerritory; and I shall not in- 
 .sult the good sense of the Senate, or of the country, 
 by proving, that if Congress does not itself pos- 
 sess this power, it cannot confer it on anoiV.er. 
 Congress cannot give w,'hat it has not got. Con- 
 gress cannot reverse the whole order of nature, 
 and make the creature greater than the creator. 
 When the Senator proved that Congress had no 
 power over slavery in the Territories, he proved, 
 necessarily, that Congress could not confer this 
 power on a Territorial Legislature — a Legislature 
 which is, at best, but a thing of our creation — 
 nor yet upon the people of a Territory; for, after 
 all, these people have no existence as a political 
 organization but by our act. 
 
 If the nower is not conferred by Congress, 
 whence do you derive it? The Senator from IVIich- 
 igan has left us in no doubt as to the quarter from 
 which he derives it. On a former occasion, and 
 in a speech not now before me, but which I have 
 in my mind's eye, the Senator said he derived the 
 power from Almighty God. 
 
 Mr. CASS. I do not wish to interrupt the 
 Senator at all, because it is a matter of no sort of 
 consequence, but I wish to say to him that I did 
 not derive that power from Almighty God. I was 
 asked whence 1 derived the power of government 
 in the people.' and I answered that the right of 
 government, not the right to exclude slavery, was 
 derived from AlmiglUy God. 
 
 Mr. BROWN. I suppose when the Senator 
 said the right of government, without imjiosing a 
 limitation, he meant, of course, to include the right 
 to exclude slavery .' 
 
 Mr. CASS. Of course. 
 
 Mr. BROWN. I so understood the Senator. 
 I understood him as deriving the power of self- 
 government for the people directly from Heaven; 
 and as the Senator imposed no limitation or re- 
 striction on the power, 1 inferred, of course, that 
 he meant to include the right over slavery, and 
 the Senator says I was correct. I was justified, 
 therefore, in saying that the Senator had derived 
 this power from God. Not this single power, and 
 it alone, but this along with other powers. 
 
 Now, sir, if this be so, the conduct of this Gov- 
 ernment has been most singular; and if the Senator 
 will allow me, I will say, with the most perfect 
 respect, that his own personal conduct needs ex- 
 planation. If I am not mistaken in the antecedents 
 of the Senator, some sixteen or twenty years of 
 his now protracted and honorable life have been 
 spent in the government of one of these Terri- 
 tories, tie was commissioned to do so, not by 
 Heaven, but by the President of the United States. 
 The people whom he governed with so much abil- 
 ity, and with such acknowledged advantage to 
 them, were never consulted as to whether he 
 should be their governor. The President commis- 
 sioned him, and that was the end of it. All the 
 people had to do was to receive him and to respect 
 
him aB their governor. When the Senator comes 
 to reply, 1 shall be glail to learn from him how he 
 justifies himself in talcing a man's commission to 
 rule over a people who have authority direct from 
 God himself to govern themselves ? It seems to | 
 me, wilhoul explaiuition, that the Senator has , 
 stood, according to his own theory, very much, 
 like an usurper; and if I had not ihe greatest pos- 
 sible veneration and respect for the Senator, I would 
 say an usurper who had impiously interposed to 
 ■wrest from a people the greatest and best gift of 
 Heaven— the right of self-government. 
 
 If, as is contended, the people of a Territory j 
 are gifted from Heaven with the right of self gov- [ 
 ernment, by what authority do you habitually [ 
 send men to rule over them? You appoint their i 
 governors, and other executive officers, and re- 
 move them at pleasure. You appoint judges to j 
 expound their laws, and even these are not exempt 
 from the power of removal. True, you allow i 
 them, as a matter of special grace, to elect members j 
 of their legislative council. But then, to sliowthe ! 
 omnipotence of your power, you require them to 
 send up their laws for approval here, and none are 1 
 binding until approved by Congress. This very i 
 bill now under discussion authorizes the President 
 to appointgovernors, secretaries, judges, marshals, 
 (tc.for these Territories; and it is very explicit 
 in providing that all laws passed by the Terri- 
 torial Legislature shall undergo the revision of 
 Congress before they are binding. It does seem 
 to me, Mr. President, if these people have been 
 specially commissioned from Heaven to g^ivern 
 themselves, we are guilty of an impious usurpa- 
 tion, and become the rankest despots, when we 
 exercise authority like this. I shall be glad to 
 know of the Senator how we are to justify our- 
 selves in thus assuming and exercising control 
 over a people whom God has authorized to govern 
 themselves? For be it remembered, the Senator 
 has asserted that the people had the right of self- 
 government unlimited and complete; and when 1 
 so stated his position, as in his judgment to induce 
 the impression, that he had asserted their power 
 over slavery alnne, he corrected me, and said his 
 assertion was the right of self-government— gov- 
 ernment as to everything; slavery, of course, in- 
 cluded. 
 
 What I contend for is, that if the people have 
 the rie:ht of self-government, as contended for by 
 the Se'nator fronfiVlichigan, then you have no right 
 to appoint officers to rule over them, nor exact 
 thalthey shall send up theirlaws for your approval. ; 
 And if they have not the sovereignty which enti- j 
 ties them to appoint their own oHicers, and to pass j 
 their own laws, independent of your supervision 
 and dictation, then they have not that higher de- 
 gree of sovereignty which entitles them to say 
 what shall, and what shall not be property in a 
 Territory inhnl)ited by them, and belonging to the 
 States of this Union. 
 
 Whatever the Senator's opinions may be, and 
 I do not question his sincerity, the practical results 
 of his action are these: The people, with all their 
 Heaven-born sovereignty, have no right of self- 
 government — of free and uncontrolled self-govern- 
 j^ent — until they come to slavery, and then their 
 power is as boundless as the universe, and as un- 
 limited as God can make it. You appoint their 
 officers Vv-ithout their approval, and remove them 
 without their consent. You exercise the utmost 
 
 vigilance over their legislation until it comes to 
 slavery, and then you grant them the largest lib- 
 erty. Why is this? Either it proceeds from a 
 timidity that shrinks from a manly responsibility 
 on this subject, which I cannot suspect, and there- 
 fore will not charge; or else from a conviction that 
 slavery is an institution accursed of Heaven; and 
 that while your love for the Union will not allow 
 you to stamp on it the seal of Heaven *s vengeance, 
 you will withdraw from it all protection, and leave 
 it to the tender mercies of all whose passions or 
 prejudices m.ay lead them to make war upon it. 
 1 Sir,l have I'lO fellowship with that sickly sen- 
 ■ timentality tliat speaks of slavery as a great moral 
 evil, and is constantly praying for some safe and 
 peticeful mode of getting nd of it I believe that 
 slavery is of divine origin, and that it is a great 
 moral, social, and political blessing— a blessing to 
 the slave, and a blessing to the master. 1 am not 
 going to elaborate this idea; it is of itself a theme 
 for half a dozen speeches. But I undertake to say, 
 that nowhere, in all Christendom, is there a higher 
 degree of morality than in theslaveholding States. 
 In^this respect the slaveholding States challenge a 
 : comparison with their boastful sisters of freedom. 
 I I risk nothing in saying that slavery operates as 
 a check upon crime. I will tell you why. It 
 equalizes white men, puts them on a level with one 
 another, and represses thereby many of the evil 
 I passions which rise up and drive men to madness 
 j in communities where white men are not equal. 
 
 Nowhere in this broad Union but in the sl.ave- 
 
 i! holdins; States is there a living, breathing exem- 
 
 i jilificution of the beautiful sentiment, that all men 
 
 areequal. In the South all men are equal. I mean, 
 
 , of course, whilemen; negroes are not men, v/itliia 
 
 Ithe meaning of the Declaration. If they -were, 
 
 Madison, and Jefferson, and Washington, all of 
 
 j I whom lived and died slaveholders, never could 
 
 have made it, for they never regarded negroes as 
 
 their equals, in any respect. But men, white rr.en, 
 
 the kind of men spoken of in the Declaration of 
 
 Independence, are equal in the South, and they 
 
 are so nowhere else. It is slavery that makes 
 
 them so. 
 
 In the South we have but one standard of social 
 merit, and that is integrity. Poverty is no crime, 
 and lalior is honorable. The poorest laborer, if he 
 has preserved an unsullied reputation, is on asocial 
 level with all his fellows. The wives and daugh- 
 ters of our mechanics and the laboring men stand 
 not an inch lower in the social scale than the wives 
 and daughters of our governers, secretaries, and 
 judges. It is not always so with you, and I will 
 tell you why. The line that sepaiates menial from 
 honorable labor with you is not marked by a caste 
 or distinct color, as it is with us. In the South, 
 as in the North, all the mechanic arts are trented 
 as honorable, and they are not the less so because 
 sometimes practiced by blacks. It may surprise 
 our northern friends, but all the South will attest 
 its truth, that nothing is more common in the 
 South than to see the master and his slave work- 
 ing together at the same trade. And the man who 
 would breathe a suspicion that the master had sunk 
 one hair's breadth in the social scale in conse- 
 quence of this kind of contact would, by general 
 consent, be written down an ass. 
 
 But there are certain menial employments which 
 belong exclusively to the negro — these furnish a 
 field of labor that the white man never invades, or 
 
 ' \ 
 
5 
 
 if he does, he is not tempted there by gain. Wliy, 
 sir, it would tnkeyou longer to find a while nuin, 
 in my Slate, who would hire liiniself outus a boot- 
 black, or a white woman who would go to ser- 
 vice as a chambermaid, tlian it took Cajilain Cook 
 to sail around the world. For myself, in thirty 
 years, I have never found a sinjile one. 
 
 Would any man take his boot-black, would any 
 lady take her chambermaid into companionship.' 
 We do not in the South, for they are always ne- 
 groes; Mechanics, over.seers, and lionest laborer.s, 
 of every kind, are taken into comimnionship, and 
 treated , in nil re.-^pects, as equals. It is their right, 
 and no one thinks of denying it. 
 
 I do not say that it is disreputable for white men 
 and white women to ^o out to service and to per- 
 form even tliese lower graden of labor. I]ut I say 
 that with you, as with us, they lose their position 
 in the social scale when they do it. With you it 
 must be done by whites, and therefore the whiles 
 lose position; with us this menial labor is per- 
 formed by negroes, and the equality among the 
 wiiites is preserved. 
 
 If the Senator from Massacliusetts [Mr. Sum- 
 ner] wants to see a specimen of that equality 
 spoken of by Jelferson, in tlie Declaration of Inde- 
 
 Seiulence, ami so much lauded by himself tlie other 
 ay, let me advise him to come to Mississippi. 
 We will there show him what he has never seen 
 in Massachusetts, and what he never will see in a 
 free State — a whole community standing on ajier- 
 fect level, and not one of them the tithe of a hair's 
 breadth higher in the social scale than another. 
 This isequalily; this is social equality — the equal- 
 ity lo ulucli all men were born, and whicli no man 
 loses in a slave State but by dishonesty or im- 
 morality of some sort. 
 
 I wili not pause to consider the black man's 
 condition in this country as contrasted with that 
 of his fellows in his native home. There is enough 
 in it to awaken our thoughts, and cause us seri- 
 ously to inquire whether it is not possible, and 
 even proliable, that God, in his providence, has 
 brought the African.s from amidst the barbarism 
 and cannibalism of their native jun£;le, and placed 
 tlieir feet on these happy sliores, where, under tlie 
 benign influence of our laws, they may learn 
 morality and Christianity; and, in Heaven's own 
 good time, return to lift the pall of darkness and 
 death that has rested so long on their wretched 
 country.' 
 
 But enouffh of this. I did not intend to have 
 spoken of the negro, or of his influence on the 
 social condition of our country. We who own 
 slaves are satisfied with our condition in every 
 respect; and those who do notown them, we may 
 hope, will in no way be made accountaljle for the 
 sin we commit in holding them in bondage. 
 
 Asking pardon for this digression, I come back, 
 Mr. President, to the subject under discussion: 
 The right of the people of a Territory to exclude 
 slavery; or, in other words, to declare that not to 
 be property in a Territory belonging to all the 
 States, which is recognized as property by the 
 United States, and held as property in fifteen States 
 of this Union. It must beadmitted that the power 
 which makes such a declaration, and maintains it, 
 is invested with the very highest attributes of sov- 
 ereignty — a sovereignty which the Government 
 has not dared to exercise in theTerritories acquired 
 from Mexico. 
 
 The. Senator from Michigan, if I underHiand him, 
 asserts the sovereignty of the people in the Territo- 
 ries over properly in the Territories. I should like 
 to know at what time tliis sovereignty attaches; 
 does it go with the first man who enters the Ter- 
 ritory, or must a hundred, or two litindred, or a 
 thou.sand, have entered before this sovereignty at- 
 taches? This is an im{iortaiit point; and 1 shall 
 be glad to liave the Senator's views on it. We, 
 who maintain the sovereignty of the States, have 
 no difliculty in fixing the lime when the sover- 
 eignty attaches. It attnches, as we think, at the 
 moment when the Territory enters the Union as 
 a Stale. Up to this time it resides in the States, 
 or with the people of the States. With us there 
 is no such thing as sovereignly in a Territory. 
 A Territory is subordinate; she iins no voice here, 
 and no vote in the other Inanch of Congress. She 
 is not equal with the States. But, on the instant 
 of her entry into the Union, she becomes equal — 
 the sovereignty passes — and, within her limits, 
 she may do whatever Virginia or Massachusetts 
 may do within their limits. 
 
 I'o admit the sovereignty of a Territory is to 
 admit the existence of a State out of the Union. 
 A State or sovereignty in the Union cannot treat 
 with any foreign Power. The Constitution for- 
 bids it. But a State or sovereignty out of the 
 Union may treat; it may form alliances, and, if it 
 choose, not only remain out of the Union, but at- 
 tach itself to any foreign Power. Siqipose the 
 "sovereign Territory" of Oregon should take a 
 fancy to attach itself to Great Britain, I should 
 like to know how my friend from Michigan would 
 prevent it? It is useless to say this will not hap- 
 |5en. The question as to whether it will or will 
 not happen does not aflect the question of right. 
 And besides, this is an age of progress, and we 
 know not what a day may bring forth. 
 
 If it suits the purposes of the Senator to an- 
 swer, I should like to know to what point he car- 
 ries his doctrine? Does he believe that the people 
 of a Territory, even before the erection of a terri- 
 torial government, such as we are now making for 
 Kansas and Nebraska, have the right lo exclude 
 slavery? 
 
 Mr. CASS. Does the Senator wish me to ex- 
 plain? 
 
 Mr. BROWN. I should like an ansv/er now 
 on the single point. 
 
 Mr. CASS. I will answer the Senator in a very 
 few words. I believe that Congress, from the re- 
 ' lation existing between them and the people of the 
 Territories, and the necessity arising from that rela- 
 tion, have a right to organize a government in a 
 Territory; but 1 also believe that if we neglect this 
 duty, as we did in the case of California, ihelaws 
 of God give the community a right to establish a 
 government fir them.'elves. 
 
 Mr. BROWN. The Senator's answer does 
 noi exactly meet my question, unless he means 
 that a government thus established m!\y exclude 
 slavery. If he does I am answered, and I dissent 
 from the answer. 
 
 1 admit that any people left without a govern- 
 ment may make a government for themselves; 
 that is to say, they may make such municipal 
 regulations for the protection and security of life, 
 liberty, and property as they may think best'. 
 But these regulations must be consistent with the 
 rights of the sovereisn. The Senator is correct 
 
6 
 
 when he says the right to make this sort of gov- 
 ernment arises out of the necessity of the case. 
 But the right must not be carried further tlian may 
 be justified by the necessity that brought it into 
 being. Whatever is necessary to the protection 
 of the people in their persons and property may 
 be done. And now will the Senat;)r, or any one 
 else, undertake to sliow that the exclusion of sla- 
 very is at all necessary to the security of either 
 persons or property in a Territory .' No one will 
 pretend that it is. Its exclusion is not neces- 
 sary to the existence of a temporary government; 
 and being inconsistent with the rights of the sov- 
 ereign, to wit, the States of the Union, it cannot be 
 excluded by tlie usurpation of a power not granted 
 by the Constitution, or justifieil by the tyrant's 
 plea of necessity. 
 
 The temporary government thus established, 
 and resting solely on necessity, can exist only at 
 the pleasure of the sovereign. When he appears 
 and asserts his authority this temporary govern- 
 ment must pass away. 
 
 Suppose fifty Americans — and I care not if the 
 number be more or less — are left on an island be- 
 longing to Great Britain, uninhabited, and conse- 
 quently without an existing government. That 
 they may set up a government for themselves no 
 one will deny. They may fashion it after ourown, 
 if they choose. But if, at the end of a few years, the 
 agents of the Q-ueen appear to assert the authority 
 of the crown — will any one pretend that our Amer- 
 icans can maintain their jurisdiction; must not their 
 authority yield at once to the superior authority of 
 the sovereign ? And so, I apprehend, it will be if 
 possession is taken of territory belonging to these 
 States. I Jf it is without a government, those taking 
 possession may make a government; but when 
 the States appear by their proper agents to assert 
 their authority, the provisional government must 
 give way. It can no more be maintained that pos- 
 session may be taken of territory belonging to 
 these States, and the citizens of the State excluded 
 with their property, than it can be maintained that 
 an island belonijing to Britain may be seized, and 
 the Queen's subjects with their property excluded. 
 If the Senator has only meant to assert the power 
 of a people left withouta government tomakeone 
 forthemselves commensurate with theirnecessities, 
 I concur with him fully. But if he goes further 
 than this, and asserts a sovereignty that rises above 
 the authority of Congress, and puts the States, the 
 rightful owners of the soil, at defiance, then I dis- 
 sent. To this I never can agree. 
 
 The period is well fixed in my mind, at which the 
 right to exclude slavery from a territory attaches. 
 It is wlien the Territory comes to form a State con- 
 stitution for herself — and this she may not do, the 
 precedents to the contrary notwithstanding, until 
 she has the requisite population. The Constitu- 
 tion has very wisely provided that each State 
 shall be e)itilled to one member of Congress; that 
 representation shall be apportioned among th-e 
 States according to population; and to ascertain 
 the population, it has provided for taking a cen- 
 sus. Now, to admit a State without the requisite 
 population to entitle her to a member, is a fraud 
 upon the rights of other States, for it diminishes 
 their political power; and to guess at the numlier 
 of inhabitants, is a fraud on the Constitution, for 
 the Constitution has directed you to take a census. 
 
 A State coming into the Union in a proper way 
 
 has the right to come in with or without slavery, 
 as she chooses. This I admit, and 1 admit nothing 
 more. Perhaps a very rigid adherence to the rights 
 of all parties would require a State to be in the 
 Union, and fully invested with sovereignty, before 
 she undertook to exercise so important a power as 
 the exclusion of slavery. As an original propo- 
 sition, 1 would maintain this doctrine. But the 
 point seems to have been yielded, and 1 will not 
 insist on it now. 
 
 To show how well I am sustained in the views 
 I have so imperfectly expressed, I will read a few 
 short extracts from the speeches of Mr. Calhoun 
 and one or two others on the doctrine of squatter 
 sovereignty. On the first of June, 184S, Mr. Cal- 
 houn said: 
 
 " There are tlirce questions involved in this entangled 
 affair. Tlie firj^t is the power of Conntross to legislate upon 
 this subject so as to prevent the slaveholding portion of the 
 Union from emigrating with their property to any Territory. 
 Tlie next qu"Stion is therightof the inhahilants of a Terri- 
 tory to make a law excludi)i« tlie cilizcns of Ihcie Stales 
 from cmi^ralitig thilher Willi tlieir property, and the third 
 is tlie power of Congress to vest the people of a territory 
 with that right." * » * "The territory 
 
 IS OPEN TO ALL THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, 
 AND IT MUST REMAIN OPEN, AND CANNOT BE CLOSED BUT 
 BY THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY WHEN THEY COME TO 
 
 FORM THEIR OWN CONSTITUTION, and then they can do as 
 they please." 
 
 On the 27th of June, 1848, Mr. Calhoun spoke 
 at length on this subject. I read from his speech, 
 at page 871 of the Appendix to the Congressional 
 Globe.. Having disposed of the power of Con- 
 gress over the subject, he said: 
 
 "I HOW go one step further, and propose to show that 
 neither the inhabitants of the Territories nor their Legis- 
 latures, have any such right. If the Territories belong to 
 the United States, if the ownership, dominion, and sover- 
 eignly ovec them be in the Slates of the Union, then neither 
 the iiihaliitantsof the Territories nor their Legisl.iturescan 
 exercise any jiower but what is subordinate to them." * * 
 " But if the reverse be true, if the dominion and sover- 
 eignty over the Territories be in the inhabitants, * * * 
 they might exclude whom they pleased, and what they 
 pleased. But in that case, they would cease to be Ter- 
 ritories of tlie United States the moment we acquired 
 them and permitted them to be inhabited. The first half 
 dozen of squatters would become the sovereigns, with full 
 dominion and sovereignty over them." 
 
 I forbear to read Mr. Calhoun's argument. It 
 was like all that caine from him, full, complete, 
 lucid, and convincing. 
 
 On the IDth of July, 1848, the present Secretary 
 of War, then a member of this body, spoke at 
 length on the territorial question. I read from 
 his speech, as I find it recorded at pages &08, 909, 
 ar.d 910 of tl^^' Globe's Appendix for that year: 
 
 " The various modes which have been proposed to ex- 
 clude slaveholders from entering territory of the United 
 
 I States with their property may be referred to three sources 
 of power: the Federal Government, the territorial inhabit- 
 
 I ants, and the law of the land anterior to its acquisition by 
 the United States." 
 
 \ After discussing at length the power of the Fed- 
 eral Governineni over slavery in the Territories, 
 
 1 and concluding that no authority for its exclusion 
 was lodged in Congress, the speaker continued: 
 
 " Many of the reasons and principles presented to estab- 
 lish the absence of power in the Federal Government to 
 exclude slavery from territory belonging to the United 
 
 ! Slates, bear with like force against the second class of opin- 
 ions — that the power rests in the territorial inhabitants. In 
 the unwearied search of those who, from the foundation of 
 our Government, have sought in every quarter for the fount- 
 ains of power by which the sovereignty of the States might 
 be subnn iged, this, until recently, remained undiscovered." 
 The Senator was neither unjust nor illiberal to- 
 wards the early settlers in aTerritory. Hear him: 
 
"To the citizun who presses beyond the limit!) of civlli- 1 
 zation to opRn tip to ciiltivnlioii niiil Hclilciiiuiit tlu! fnrcsi 
 domain of tin,- United tiiiilcs, I Imvc nlwayn hi'i-ri willing 
 to cxli'Mil |iroli'i'lii)ii nnd «iK'li pcculiiir adviiiitiiKiM ovir 
 Other joint owfuTs of lln! coinnion Mliick iin ar« dm- to lln' 
 eervici's lie has ihns rcniU'rvd to thu poniiiion inii-n-st. Iliil 
 the civil rii;hls, (he poliiicnl priiiei|iU-s ot' our Uovcriiiiii'iil, 
 are Mot to lit' iriuisrifrred to lliose who shull be lir.st in the 
 race to reaeli ne\vlyaci|iiired pomiesnioiiit, or wlio shall by 
 Bcoidenl he roiiiid upon tlieni.'* 
 
 To show the conclusion reached by the speaker, 
 I rend his own remarks: ; 
 
 " I have thus presented my view of the three sources 
 from wliieli it in claimed to draw (lie power to pnihiliit sla 
 very in territory of the United Statin. From the eoiiKider 
 aliens: pres^enled, my conclusion is, that it cannot properly 
 be done in eillier of the modes proposed; thai, not heiiii! 
 anion;; the delegated powers of the Federal li(:veriiinent,or 
 necessary to the exereise ol'aiiy of its grants, CoiiL'ress can- 
 not pass a law (tt lliat purpose; that the lerritorlal ii«v- 
 ernnieiit is >ul)ordiiiate lo llie Federal (ioveriinient, from 
 which it derives its aiithorily and support, and that neither 
 peparately nor united can they invade the undelegated sov- > 
 ereisnty of the States over their territory." 1 
 
 To fortify my own jiosition, I might multiply 
 authorilies liiie these almost indefinitely. It may 
 besiidicient to sny, that so far as I know, no strict 
 constriictiotiist in the South has ever yielded the 
 point that the inhabitants of a Territory could 
 exchuie slavery. All have stood upon the common 
 ground that the |ieople, when they come to form 
 a State constitution, beiiiij duly entitled by their 
 numbers and position in the Government to make 
 such an instrument, may, if they think proper, 
 exclude slavery, and then its exclusion forms no \ 
 just ground of complaint. i 
 
 Justice, Mr. President, requires that I should, 
 at this point, recur to a speech delivered by myself 
 in the House of Representatives, on the 3d of 
 June, 1848. It will oe found at page 648 of the 
 Appendix to the Globe. I then said: 
 
 "The people hold the Territories as tenants in common, 
 and all, or any partofthem,may enter these Territories from 
 any and all parts of the United States, and take with them 
 their properly. They may enact laws for their personal 
 protection and the preservation of their properly ; hut lliey 
 cannot exclude others who come after them Ironi the pos- 
 session and enjoyment of equal rii,'hts with themselves. i 
 
 The first who enter a Territory cannot assume a sover- 
 eignty which belongs to all. The spccilic exercise of sov- 
 ercigiity over the question of slavery is held in abeyance 
 until the people of the Territory ask admission into the 
 Union as a State, according to the Constitution ; and being 
 adinitled, the Slate becomes sovereign within her limits." 
 
 I will not detain the Senate with a reproduction 
 of arguments employed by me at that time. My 
 consi.'stency is vindicated in what I have read. I 
 summed up as follows: 
 
 "The cimclusions, .Mr. Chairman, to which my own 
 mind has arrived, on the several points involved, are briefly 
 tJiese: That every citizen of the United States may go to 
 the Territories and lake with him his properly, he it slaves, 
 or any other description ol' properly. 'J'hat neither the 
 United States Congress nor Territorial Legislature has any 
 power or authority to exclude him ; and that the power of 
 legislation, by whomsoever exercised in the Territories, 
 whether by Congress or the Territorial Legislature, must 
 be' exerted for the equal bimefit of all — for the southern 
 slaveholder no less than for the northern dealer in dry 
 goods." 
 
 It will be seen, Mr. President, that I treated the 
 subject then as I do now. 1 asserted then, as I 
 assert to-day, that whoever legislates for the Ter- 
 ritories, whether it be Congress or a territorial 
 Legislature, is as much bound to give protection to 
 my property as to the property of any one else. 
 If the Constitution is to be ouserved , and our rights 
 under it are equal, I want to know by what other 
 rule we can be governed .' Shall the Senator from 
 Ohio, [Mr. Wade,] who lives in a country where 
 
 the people invest most of their gain in live-Block, 
 lake liiH peculiar kind of property into the Terri- 
 tory of Nebraska, and then turn upon ine and say 
 you shall not take yi.'ur |iroperty there.' Shall he 
 do this .simply because 1 chance to have invested 
 the [irodueiH of my labrir in someiliing to which he 
 has a prejudice.' He and his coristitueiils are pre- 
 jtidiceu against slavery, and will not live in a coun- 
 try where it exists. Suppose 1 and my constitu- 
 ents were to take the same prejudice against hogs, 
 and sheep, and cattle, anil say that we would not 
 live in a country where they were permitted. Sup- 
 pose that we, being a majority, should say to the 
 people of Ohio, " You shall not drive your live- 
 stock into the Territories ;" would we have a 
 right to do it .' Would not the gentleman consider 
 such a declaration an invasion of his constitutional 
 privileges!' Whether deprived of his privilege to 
 emigrate with his live-stock by the Territorial Le- 
 gislature, or by the Federal autlK)riiy, would he 
 not regard it an infraction of his rights as an 
 American citizen.' 
 
 Let me put another case. The Senator from 
 Connecticut [Mr. S.mitii] comes from a country 
 where they make clocks, and sometimes very good 
 ones; but we happen, at the South, to have some 
 prejudices against Yankee clocks. Sunjiose our 
 people were the first to go into this Territory, 
 could they say to the people of Connecticut, " You 
 shall not bring your Yankee clocks here .'" Could 
 he first half dozen, or fifty of us who might em- 
 igrate from Mississippi or Alabama, undertake to 
 exclude all New England simply on the clock 
 question .' This Territory covers an area about 
 seven times aslargeas the State of Virginia. Now, 
 the question is, had the first half dozen southern- 
 ers, who happened to squat on one corner of it, a 
 right to say that in all future time, in no part of 
 this vast domain, shall there ever be brought a 
 Connecticut clock .' Would it not be monstrous? 
 Would the people of Connecticut be willing to 
 submit to it.' Certainly not, and why.' because 
 a clock is property. It is something in which they 
 invest the products of their labor — something 
 against which they have no prejudice, but against 
 which we have. 
 
 Now, sir, I submit that if I, and my constituents, 
 have no right to gratify our prejudices at the ex- 
 pense of Connecticut and her clocks, then the Sen- 
 ator and his constituents have no right to gratify 
 theirs at the expense of Mississippi and her ne- 
 groes, 
 
 I will not pursue this branch of the subject 
 further. It was not my intention, in the begin- 
 ning, to make a speech, and I have to apologize to 
 the Senate for having already consumed more 
 time than I ought. 
 
 I intend, Mr. President, to vote for this bill. 
 But 1 must confess that the particular section un- 
 der debate, and the one which has given rise to 
 so much discussion, is not worded as I should 
 have liked. It is not free from ambiguity;and, as 
 I like directness in legislation, I would, if it had 
 been left to me, have couched it in language so 
 explicit that no one couid have mistaken it. It de- 
 clares, as a consequence of former legi.'^lation, that 
 the Missouri compromise is inoperative and void. 
 I would have said in terms:- " tne Missouri com- 
 promise is hereby repealed." But as the end is 
 aftained, I will not chatTer as to the means by 
 which we attain that end. 
 
LIBRPRY OF CONGRESS 
 
 8 
 
 The language employed by the distinguished 
 author of this bill, and mover of the section now 
 under consideration is, that the people of the Ter- 
 ritory nuiy regulate their own domestic institu- 
 tions for themselves, subject only to the restric- 
 tions of the Constitution. I should have preferred 
 a simple repeal of the Missouri restriction. That 
 would have restored us to the position we had 
 before the law was passed, and would have been 
 free from ambiguity or circumlocution. But the 
 language employed is not decidedly objectionable 
 to me, and, 1 repeat, I will vote for the bill. 
 
 By yielding the " right to regulate domesticinsti- 
 tutions," I understand we yield the right simply to 
 regulate, not to destroy. To regulate is one thing, 
 to destroy is another, and a very dilVerent thing. 
 
 Domestic institutions include, as I admit, the 
 relation of husband and wife, parent and child, 
 master and servant. But I deny that the right to 
 regulate carries along with it the right to destroy. 
 The right to regulate the relation between master 
 and servant no more entitled the regulating power 
 to destroy that relation, than does the power to 
 regulate the relation between the husband and wife 
 authorize the destruction of that relation. As well 
 might the Territorial Legislature take a wife from 
 her husband, under pretense of regulating their 
 relations, as to take a servant from his master, 
 under pretense of regulating that relation. This 
 is my opinion, and 1 vote for the bill clothed in its 
 
 f resent phraseology because this is my opinion. 
 f I thought that, in voting for the bill as it now 
 stands, I was conceding the right of the people in 
 the territory, during their territorial existence, to 
 exclude slavery, I would withhold my vote. 
 That equality that exists among the States, and 
 the people of the States, under the Constitution, 
 is not taken away by any fair construction of the 
 language employed in the bill. Senators, North 
 and South, have spoken as if ihe bill conceded the 
 right of tlie people in a. Territory to exclude 
 slavery. I combat the idea. It leaves the ques- 
 tion where I am quite willing it should be left — to 
 the ultimate decision of the courts. It is purely a 
 judicial question, and if Congress will refrain from 
 intimating an o|iinion, I am willing that the Su- 
 preme Court shall decide it. But, sir, 1 have too 
 ofcen seen that Court sustaining the intentions of 
 Congress, to risk a decision in my favor, after 
 Congress has decided against me. The alien and 
 
 sedition '"a" 011 "ssV 791 9 ^ ' Jr; 
 
 all been , \So\., 
 
 ill my opinion, because they were so, but because 
 the Supreme Court, as a coordinate Department of 
 the Government, was disinclined to clash with the 
 other Departments. If this question is allowed to 
 go before the Supreme Court, free from the influ- 
 ence of a congressional pre-judgment, I v/ill abide , 
 the result, though it beagainstme. If othergentle- 
 men had intimated no opinion, I would have inti- 
 mated none. But I am unwilling to see the weight 
 of authority here thrown altogether on one side. 
 For this reason I have spoken, and for this reason 
 I call upon others who concur with me to speak. 
 
 Mr. President, I leave this subject. I ought not 
 to have said so much, and yet I know not how I 
 could have said less. At best, 1 could not hope to 
 throw additional light on a subject like this. It has 
 been illumined by the philosophy of Webster, 
 made brilliant by the eloquence of Clay, and consol- 
 idated by the severest of all tests — Calhoun's logic. 
 Still I was desirous of presenting some views of my 
 own; and especially so, as I am advised that the 
 Senator from Michigan is going to address the 
 Senate. I know full well his pov/ers in debate; 
 and I have not presented my remarks to provoke 
 his criticism. But this 1 know, if they pass the 
 ordeal of his investigation, no power on earth can 
 siiake them. 
 
 The Senator will do me the justice to believe 
 that it gives me no pleasure to differ with him on 
 this subject. Accustomed to regard him as the 
 great father of the Democratic family, I dissent 
 with misgivings and great pain from anything that 
 he says. On this question I think he is wrong; 
 but my mind is not sealed against conviction. I 
 will listen to him, and if I find myself in error, I 
 will confess it with more pleasure than I have had 
 in expressing these views. It is honorable, at all 
 times, to confess our faults, and to repair injuries 
 when we are convinced. If I have been at fault, 
 and being so, have done injustice to the Senator, I 
 shall be glad to know it. I would surrender to any 
 antagonist fairly entitled to a victoiy; but the age, 
 experience, ability, and incorruptible integrity of 
 the Senator, make him an antagonist to whom any 
 man may surrender wiihout dishonor. He has 
 only to convince me, and I surrender at discre- 
 tion. 
 
 Printed at the Congressional Globe Office. 
 
•■ 
 
l!!r.:.?i<^o.,^Bss 
 
 011897 791