F 1 Class _E"XI^ ADMISSION OF OREGON. SPEECH OF HON. ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS, OF GEORGIA, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEBRUARY ]2, 1859 The House liaving under consideration the bill providing for the admission of Oregon — Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia, said: Mr. Speaker: I do not know that I can say anything that will add force to the argument al- ready made in behalf of the admission of Oregon. It is my purpose, however, to contribute what I can to that end. And if I fail in my wish, it will be because my ability is not equal to my zeal. Apart from considerations of public duty and jus- tice to the people claiming tliis admission, there is another consideration which enlists my entire energies for the bill; that, sir, is the opportunity it affords me, as a southern man, and one acting with the Democratic party, to show the ground- lessness of the charge made last year, that we were in favor of putting one rule to a State ap- plying with a slave-State constitution, and an- other and a more rigorous rule to a free-State ap- plication; that we required a larger population for the admission of a State not tolerating African slavery, than one permitting and allowing it. The gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Stanton,] who has just taken his seat, has reasserted that charge, in substance. Sir, I repudiated it when it was first made, and I repudiate it now. The position of Kansas and that of Oregon are totally dissimilar; and whatever consideration of duty, looking to the peace and quiet of that country, as well as the general welfare, may have induced me and others, to put the population restriction upon any future application from Kansas, like considera- tions of duty, of a higher character, acting as we now are under existing obligations which we can- not ignore, forbid tljat the same representative ratio rule should be extended to Oregon. As I stated in my opening remarks, under existing compacts, under existing laws affirming and ex- tending what all regarded as a most solemn com- pact, the ordinance of 1787, it is, in my judgment, ;l high obligation to admit Oregon so soon as she has sixty thousand inhabitants. Now, sir, before going into that, I wish to re- ply to the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Stanton,] who has just taken his seat. If I understand him, and the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr GoocH,] who asked that significant question of the Delegate from Oregon and Senator elect: how he would vote in the Senate on the repeal of the population clause in the Kansas bill of last ses- sion .' both of them would be willing to vote for the admission of Oregon, provided that represent- ative ratio required of Kansas should be repealed. They occupy this strange position: because the Democratic party did Kansas at the last session, as they assume, a wrong, they will do Oregon a like wrong at this session, by way of retaliation. Mr. STANTON. The gentleman misunder- stands me. Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I cannot be in- terrupted. I have heard the gentleman's argu- ment; so has the House; and the gentleman and the House will hear mine. Let them stand to- gether. I understand the minority of the Com- mittee on Territories, with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Grow] at their head, signify a like willingness. Mr. GROW. No, sir; I stated distinctly that I would never go for the clause of the constitu- tion I have indicated. Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. Do not inter- rupt me. I state the gentleman 's position as it ap- pears in his minority report. Tiie only tiling he complains of in it is the discrimination, as he calls it, in the Kansas conference bill. The only amend- ment he proposes to this bill is a repeal of that. Not a word in his report against the obnoxious clause in the Oregon constitution against negro equality. That he passes over, and evidently seems to rest his entire opposition to this bill to the existing law in reference to Kansas. What has brought " this change over the spirit of his dream" 1 do not know. I am glad, however, to see that there is a number of the other side actu- ated by a more liberal, a juster, and a more mag- nanimous sentiment. Tliey cannot see the logic, or the moral of the position of the gentleman from Pennsylvania; that because, in his assumption, this side of the House did wrong last session, therefore he will do wrong this. To ihe majority on that side, acting with the gentleman from Penn- sylvania, I would put the question, how can two wrongs make a right? If it were granted that in- justice was done Kansas, how can that be righted by repeating it towards Oregon ? That side of the House will permit nic to tell them, that by their votes to-day they will spike every gun they have fired against the Democratic party for liieir alleged injustice done to Kansas. If the Demo- cratic party did wrong to Kansas, (but 1 shall show that the cases arc totally dissimilar,) the Republican party seems disposed to-day to follow suit, and do the same wrong they complain of to Oregon. If they are sincere in their belief, and not governed solely by opposition and antag- onism, would it not be the wiser, the better, the noliler, and more statesmanlike course for them to come forward and set us an example of doing right, as the two gentlemen from Massachusetts [iVIr. Thayer and Mr. Comins] urged theni yes- terday .' But, sir, the cases are totally dissimilar; the clause iti the Kansas compromise bill, refusing to hear any further application for admission from her in case of her declining to come into the Union under iier then application, with the modifica- tion of her land proposition, vi/hich we submitted, until she had a population equal to the represent- ative ratio, may, or may not have been right, ac- cording to the opinions of gentlemen. The pol- icy of adopting such a general principle in all casi'S where it can be done, may, or may not be right, as gentlemen may vary in their o[)inions; but that question cannot arise in the case of Ore- gon. We are foreclosed on that point, in the territorial organic act; and I appeal, not only to this side of the House, but to every side, and ask how tiiey can get round that obligation in the territorial l)ill of Oregon, of 1^48, which declares 6olemt)ly that all the guarantees, privileges, and rights sicurL-d to the people of the Northwest Territory, should be extended to the people of OiH'gon .' The words of the act are: " Sec. 14. ^iirf4c if /io lliu |ie()|)le of tin; I erritor>*(>l' Uie L-'nili-d Stales iiniili- w<;sl of tile river Dliin by tlie articles iif compact coiitaini'd ill till' Didiiiance lor tin: Kovernnient of said Territory, on the 13tli day of July, 1787, and sliall he sulject It) all'tlie condition^:, restrietinns. and proliiliitioiis, in said arliclcs of compact inipo-ed njion ilie people of said Torriioiy." — StiiluWs tU Lar^c, volume 9, page '3-2i). And what were those rights and privileges guar- antied to the peojile in the Northwest Territory hereby secured and guarantied to the people of Oregon ? Here they are: '• And wlionevcr any of ilic said States shall have sixty thou-and tri;e inlialdtaiits therein, sucli Stale shall lie uil- lililled by its Delcfiates into ilic Congress of the United (States on an equal lodtim; with llio ori^'inal Stales, in all lespcels wiialsoever ; and shall beat liberty to form a piT- nianeiit con>lilnliiin and Stale governmiit': Provided, The constitution and goveriiineiil so to be lormed shall lie re- publican, and in contormily to tin; principles coniained in these articles ; and so far as it can be consistent wilh tlie general interests of tlic Confederacy, such admission shall beulloivi^d at an earlier period, and vvlien there may he a less number of tree inhabitants in the State tiian sixty thousand." — /'i/i/i Jlrlicle Ordinance 1787, Statutes at Larue, volume 1, page 53. No such guarantee as this was ever given to the people of the Territory of Kansas; if there had been, that representative-ratio feature could not liave been put in the conference bill without a violation of plighted faith. And is there any inconsistency on this side of the House in adopt- ing the representative-ratio principle, wherever it can be done, and still maintaining good faith where previous obligations prevent.' Oregon is the only Territory to which this previous obli- gation to admit with sixty thousand inhabitants applies. Hers must be an exceptional case in any general rule that it may be deemed advisable to adopt for all the other Territories for the fu- ture. Kan.sas stands in a position to take her place with all the others, except Oregon, without any just cause of complaint. Whether such gen- eral rule be wise and proper, is not now the ques- tion; nor whether its application to Kansas at the last session was right or wrong; the question be- fore us at this time, is simply whetiier we will discharge an existing obligation .' The gentleiTian from Tennessee, [Mr. Zolli- coFFER,] who made one of the minority reports, argues that the compact of 1787, extended to Oregon by act of 1848, was not in the nature of an engagement with the people of a Territory, but with a State. The language, he says, is, " whcn- everany of said Slates, "&c. Mr. S[)eaker, what makes a State.' Is it boundary.' is it limits.' is it rivers? is it parallels of latitude? Sir, people make States. His argument, to my mind, has no force. The Territory was defined, and the compact entered into with the people, with the inhabitants; and that compact was, that as soon as they had sixty thousand free inhabitants, they were to be entitled to admission as a State; and further, so far as it can be consistent with the general interest, such admission sliall be allowed with a less number than sixty thousand inhabit- ants. There is no escape from this; nor are we without some lights as to a proper construction of these words. It is the same identical guar- antee that was extended to Tennessee in 1790; and how was this language interpreted by those who made the compact? How was it construed by the great lights of the old Republican party? This identical question came up on the admission of Tennessee, the gentleman's own State. The debate on that question was referred to yesterday. There is no dodging the question — no evading it. The question here, so far as pop- ulation is concerned, is the same as that on the admission of Tennessee. The only fact in issue now before us, is the fact that was in issue then. It is not whether the proposed State has ninety thousand or one hundred thousand, but siin|jly whether it has sixty thousand inhabit- ants. I will not go over the argument to show that it has, I am satisfied that' there are over sixty thousand inhabitants in Oregon. I am well .satisfied, from the evidence I cited the other day, that there are over one hundred thousand. There were forty-three thousand and upwards in 1855, as shown by an im|5erfecl census. F'ive years before there were only ten thousand. In five years they had increased four-fold. With a pro- portionate increase there would be now one liun- dred and thirty thousand and upwards. But even suppose the increase has been partially retarded: the other evidence shows there rnust be over one hundred thousand. The official report shows personal properly to the amount of §22,000,000. Suppose the people of Oregon to be worth $200 per capita of personal property — which is more than any Stale in the Union: there would be one hundred and ten thousand inhabitants. I tliink the per cnpita estimate of personal property at $200 is too high for Oregon. In Georgia, where the wealth per capita is greater, as I showed the other day, than in any other State in the Union, it is, including real and personal estate together, $534 for the entire population. The average in the United States is something over $350. Place it at §15" in Oregon for personal property alone, (for tiiey own no real estate there — no land pat- ents have yet issued) and the population will be over one hundred and thirty thousand. These facts satisfy me that there are more than one hun- dred thousand people there. No man can doubt, it seems to me, that there are over sixty thou- sand; and that is the question. Then, sir, in the debate referred to on the ad- mission of Tennessee, what said Mr. Madison on that point.' " The fact of population was the only necessary one ; and would geiitleiiieii be satisfied with no other method of ascertaining it but such as they themselves should direct."' He went on: " If there were the stipulatednuinber of inhabitants, that Territory could not be denied its claim of becoming a»State of the Union without a violation of rights." Again, he says that — " He himself has no doubt on the subject; the evidence was sulTicient and satisfactory." And again he said: " But he thought, where there was a doubt, Congress ougin to lean towards a decision which would give equal rights to every part of tlie American people." He said there was no doubt on his mind that there were sixty thousand people there; and that, under the compact, they were bound, from all the facts he could gather, to admit the State. How can gentlemen escape that.' Mr. Macon, a gentleman who occupied a high position in the Republican party of that day — not the party of modern Republicans, but of good old Republicans of the Jeffcrsnnian school — one of the shining lights of the House, whose name will go down to history and live as long as the names of the founders of the Republic, said: "The question before the committee was on admitting the Territory to be a State in the Union. There appeared to him only two things as necessary to be inquired into. First, was the new government republican .' It appeared to him to be so. Second, were there sixty thousand inhabit- ants in the Territory.' It appeared to him there were ; and if so, their admission as a State should not be considered as a gift, but as a right." Again, Mr. Gallatin said he — " Was of opinion that the people of the southwestern ter- ritory became ipso facto a State the moment they amounted to sixty thousand I'ree inhabitants; and that it became the duty of Congress, as part of the original compact, to recog- nize them as such, and to admit them into the Union, when- ever they had satisfactory proof of the fact." I cannot dwell on this branch of the subject. It is no question of ninety-three thousand here. It is no question of what is the ratio in other Terri- tories. It is no questfon of Kansas discrimina- tion. It is the simple, naked question of fulfill- ing obligations. That is the whole of it. I have no doubt that she has sixty thousand; and every man upon this floor so believing, according to this authority, is bound to vote for her admis- sion. Will you do it.' But the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stanton] complains of the constitution of Oregon. He complains of that article which denies political equality to the African race; to that part which ex- cludes negroes from voting; which prevents them from exercising the rights of citizenship; espe- cially that which denies them the right to main- tain an action in their courts. The Topeka con- stitution of Kansas, which that gentleman favored in 1856, excluded free negroes entirely from the Territory of Kansas. Mr. GROW. I will correct the gentleman. The Topeka constitution did not exclude free negroes from Kansas; but the question was sub- rnitted to the people, as instructions to the Legis- lature, to pass an act of that character. Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. And a large majority of the gentleman's friends who adopted the constitution voted to give the instructions. Mr. GPtOW. I make no point upon that. Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. And those who profess to be the exclusive friends of negroes, as they now do, so far as that constitution was con- cerned, voted to banish them forever from the Slate, just as Oregon has done. Whether this banishment be right or wrong, it is no worse ia Oregon than it was in Kansas. But, on the score of humanity, we of the South do not believe that those who, in Kansas or Oregon, banish this race from their limits, are better friends of the negro than we are, who assign them Uiat place among us to which by nature they are filled, and in which they add so much more to their own happiness and comfort, besides to the comrnon well-being of all. We give them a reception. We give them shelter. We clothe them. We feed them. We provide for their every want, in health and in sick- ness, in infancy and old age. We teach them to work. We educate them in the arts of civiliza- tion and the virtues of Christianity, much more effectually and successfully than you can ever do on the coasts of Africa. And, without any cost to the public, we render them useful to themselves and to the world. The first lesson in civilization and Christianity to be taught to the barbarous tribes, wherever to be found, is the first great curse against the human family — that in the sweat of their face they shall eat their bread. Under our system, our tuition, our guardianship and foster- ing care, these people, exciting so much mis-" placed philanthropy, have attained a higher de- gree of civilization than their race has attained anywhere else upon the face of the earth. The Topeka people excluded them; they, like the neighbors we read of, went round them; we, Hke the good Samaritans, shun not tiieir destitution or degradation — we alleviate both. But let that go. Oregon has, in this matter, done no worse than the gentlenian's friends did in Kansas. 1 think she acted unwisely in it — that is her business, not mine. But the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stan- ton] questions me, how could a negro in Oregon ever get his freedom under the constitution they have adopted.' I tell him, under their constitution a slave cannot exist there. The fundamental law is against it. Bui, he asks, how could his free- dom ever be established, as no free person of color can sue in her courts .' Neither can they in Geor- gia; still our courts are open to this class of peo- ple, who appear by prochein ami or guardian. Nor is there any great hardship in this; for mar- ried women cannot sue in their own names any- where where the comr^ioii law prevails. Minors also have to sue by guardian or next friend. We have suits continually in our tribunals by persons claiming to be free persons of color. They can- not sue in their own names, but by next friend. They are not citizens; we do not recognize them as such; but still the courts are open; and just so will they be in Oregon, if the question is ever raised. Mr. REAGAN. By the laws of Texas free negroes are prohibited from residing in that State, and hence Iiavc no riglit to sue in her courts; and yet the courts there have entertained jurisdiction of suits for the liberation of free negroes, and I have assisted in the prosecution of such suits, in wiiich they were declared free under writs of habeas corpus. Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I understand the gentleman to .say that the constitution of Texas is similar to this, and yet that her courts are opened just as I stated in reference to Georgia; and that ho himself has assisted free negroes in the courts of Texas to obtain their riglits. There can be no difficulty upon that score. Let me say to gentlemen on the other side of the House, not to lay tlie flattering unction to their souls that they can escape by such a pretext as that. But it was intimated by the gentleman from Ohio, that last year we voted to admit Kansas as a slave State with a view of getting two Demo- cratic Senators, and that our object is the same now in regard to Oregon. Sir, in this he is mis- taken. We stood then, as now, upon principle. Had Kansas been admitted under tlie Lecomjiton constitution, all of us Icnew tiiat the probabilities were, that two Republican Senators would have been elected. Nor was the large Democratic vote in the Senate, soon after, upon this bill for the ad- mission of Oregon, based upon any such idea as he intimated. It could not have been. When this bill passed the Senate it was not known what sort of Senators would be elected there, any more than it was as to Kansas. The election in Oregon had not been heard from. It was a hot contest. And at the election which afterwards came off, the member who was returned to this [louse was elected by only sixteen hundred majority. Under these circumstances, how can the gen- tleman attribute such motives to the action of Democratic Senators.' Where is the slightest evidence for such an imputation .' May be the gentleman attributes to oth(u-s the motives by which he himself is governed — that is, a wish to bring in the State under political auspii-es favor- able to his own view of public policy. May be he thinks, by rejecting this constitution, the State may come in under a Republican insiead of a Democratic banner; for he said her admission was only a question of time. I will not say that this i.s his object in 0])[)osing this bill; but I do say, for myself, that I am governed by no such motives as he has iiuimated. 1 will vote, whenever a Slate comes here with a constitution republican in form, and with an obligation resting upon me to vote for her admission, as this does, for her admission, irrespective of what may be the poliiical cast of her Senators and members elect. I will never do wrong that right may afterwards como from it. Wioiig does not produce such fruits. What you plant and sow, that you reap. I will never com- mit an acknowledged error, hoping that good will come of it. Good ends never justify wrong means according to my code of morals. Honesty is the best policy in all things. Perhaps most of those on the other side of the House who go against this bill, do so barely to be in opposition. To such I would say what I once said to a gentle- man in my district. When I was going to ad- dress the people at a particular place, meeting him on the way, I asked him if he was soing up to the court-house.' He said, no; that I was go- ing to speak, and that he only wanted to know what side I was upon to be against it. I said "that is the reason you are always in the minority; you give me choice of sides upon all questions, and ofcoursel take the best." [Laughter.] Would it not be well for gentlemen on that side to con- sider the point, barely as a matter of political or party tactics.' That gentleman was so well pleased with the remark that he went and heard me on the occasion alluded to, and from that day to this has never failed to vote for me. If the opposite side will allow me, I will say to them it is bad policy in any party to oppose everything barely for opposition sake. Let me entreat them not to oppose this bill — as some of them do, I fear — barely because Democrats vote for it. By this course, you give us choice of sides in a great issue of right. One word further, upon another subject, and I call the especial attention of the House to it. It is the objection raised to the constitution of Oregon on accountof tlie alien suffrage feature in it. The gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. Zollicoffer,] in his report, quotes a part of the decision of the Supreme Court, bearing upon the constitutional power of a State so to regulate suffrage within he^- own limits, but stofis right in the middle of a sen- tence. I will read first the extract quoted by the gentleman — italics his — and then read the whole sentence, as it stands in Chief Justice Taney 's decision in the Dred Scott case: ''The CoiKstitiuion lias conferred on Congress llio right to cst;il)li:;|i a unironn rale of natnraliz^tion, anil tliis right is cvidi'iitly exclusive, ami has always been held by this court to hi^ po. Consequently, no State, since Ilie adoption of tlio Constitution, can, by naturalizing an alien, invest him with the ri^lits and ■privileges accural lo a citizcii of a Slate under Ihc Federal Government,^' Sic. There the gentleman stops, with th.c sentence unfinished, at a comma. The Chief Justice goes right on with these words — '• altliongli, so far as the State alono was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to I lie lights of a cilizcn.and clothrd with all the lights and iniiniinilics which th(! con- stilution and laws of the State attached lo that charac- ter." In this the Supreme Court says, and says truly, that no State can make an alien by birth a citizen of the United States — that is the exclusive right of Congress; but that each State may clothe an alien with all the privileges and rights they see fit, within their own jurisdiction and limits. The right of suffrage, the right lo declare who shall vote at elections, is expressly reserved in the Con- stitution of the United States to each State. This Government cannot interfere with that power. It is the last right I would have the States to sur- render; for upon it rest all the great bulwarks of State rights;and, should itever be surrendered, no vestige of State riijlits would remain. Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. The comments of the gentleman from Georgia upon that portion of my report would produce the impression that I have acted unfairly. Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I do not say that. I cannot, however, be interrupted. I have barely time sufficient Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. But let me make this statement. I will not be two minutes. Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. Be brief. I will give you two minutes, but no more. Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. 1 was enforcing the position, as asserted by the court, that a State could not confer upon unnaturalized foreigners the rights of citizenship, so far as the Federal Gov- ernment was concerned; and, therefore, I quoted only that portion of the sentence found in the de- cision, which showed that to be the position of the court. That portion of the sentence is this. Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I cannot yield any further. I have already read it. Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Let me add the single remark that, in my report, I distinctly concurred with the court in the remaining portion of that sentence; that, so far as " the State alone was con- cerned," the State had the right to confer rights of citizenship upon unnaturalized foreigners. Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. It would have been much belter understood, if the gentleman had quoted the whole of it, and given his concur- rence in the whole as it stands. And I must be permitted to say, that in concurring in the whole of that decision as it stands, he yields the whole question. If a State has the right to confer upon aliens all the rights of its own citizens, so far as she is concerned, certainly the right of suffrage is included. Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. That is, so far as the State alone is concerned. Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. Exactly. The State has the exclusive control of the right of suf- frage within her limits and under her laws, ac- cording to the decision of the Supreme Court. She can say who may vole for all her officers; who for Governor and who for her State Senate and who for her House of Representatives; and then the Constitution of the United States expressly provides that the members of this House shall be chosen or voted for by those in each State who, by the constitution and laws of each State, are entitled to vote for the most numerous branch of the State Legislature. In admitting that each State may yllow an alien to vote for members of the most numerous branch of their own Legislature, the gentleman yields this entire question. The language in Chief Justice Taney's decision imme- diately preceding that quoted by the gentleman in his report, is in these words: " Nor have tlie several Statps surrendered the power of conferring these riglits and privileges, by adopting the Con- stitiitioti of the United States. Each Slate may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons ; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in iheCon- stituiion of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such, in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire wouhl be restricted to the State which gave them." Then comes the gentleman's quotation. And from the whole, the principle is clear, that each State may, if she chooses, confer tiic right of cit- izenship within her own limits and jurisdiction, upon an alien. But, without naturalization under the laws of the United States, this will not give him the right of citizenship in any respect out- side of that State. In it, his rights of citizenship may be as full and complete as those of the native born. But I did not intend to argue this point. I did that at the last session, on the Minnesota bill. In that argument, I gave the history of this question of alien suffrage in the Territories. I have nothing to add to what I then said. I barely refer to it now, that it may be considered as part and parcel of what I would say on the same points, if my time allowed, to-day. Of the Presidents Vi^ho, in some form or shape, had given the principle their sanction, either in the Territories or States, on their admission, I named Washington, the elder Adams, Jefferso.n, Madison, Jackson, Polk, Fill- more, and Pierce; and to this list may now be added that of Buchanan, who signed the Minne- sota bill. My colleague [Mr. Hill] yesterday alluded to what Mr. Calhoun said on the subject in 1836. I commented upon that, last year. I cnuld not find that speech of Mr. Calhoun in the Globe, or any parliamentary record in the country. I do not mean to say that he did not make it. It was not made upon the admission of Michigan. It was made, if at all, when a measure was up in- volving the question of suffrage in the Territory, while Micliigan was still in a territorial condi- tion. The speech is said to have been made in 1836. Michigan was not admitted until 1837. Her constitution was similar in this respect to that of Oregon. Mr. Calhoun was then in the Senate; he did not raise his voice against that fea- ture in it, as far as I have been able to find. Not a word fell from him, at that time, on the sub- ject of alien suffrage, that I am aware of. Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Allow me one sentence, Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I cannot yield. Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Allow me but a single sentence: that sentence is, that I should labor under great disadvantage, if the gentleman were even disposed to extend to me the courtesy of al- lowing me to reply to his points while he holds the floor. Therefore, I will not at present ask to do so. Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. That I under- stand very well. The gentleman can reply here- after. My time will not allow me to indulge him now. I made the speech I have referred to last year, expecting that it would be replied to; but It remains yet without reply. And 1 cannot per- mit my time to-day to be taken up with matters there disposed of. Mr. HILL. Let me ask my colleague a ques- tion. Is he not aware of the votes given by Mr. Calhoun, on the Michigan bill, against permitting alien suffrage in that State .' It was on the mo- tion of Mr. Clay. Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. What year ? Mr. HILL. In 1836. Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. Yes; I know of his votes alluded to in 1836. Michigan was then a Territory. I repeat again, that on the ad- mission of Michigan as a State next year, Mr. Calhoun said nothing against the alien-suffrage feature in her State constitution, that I know of. He may still have been against it. But one word further in reply to my colleague as to Mr. Calhoun's position on this subject: Whatever he may have said on it, or however he may have voted on it in 1836, yet in 1848, he was 6 on thecommiitee that reported the celebrated Clay- ton comprninisp, wliicli provided af^overnment for this very Territory of Ocegoii, and tiiat bill con- tained this very alien suffrage clause in it. Mr. Calhoun voted for the bill with this clause in it in the Senate. I iiave the record by me. It is not of so much importance what he said or how he voted in 18.3G, when the question was first started, as how he voted twelve years afterwards, and after mature investigation. Here is his vote in 1848. I put that against his speech and his vote in 1836, and let all go to the country with my col- league's comments. I shall bo content. Now, Mr. Speaker, on anotht-r and entirely different aspect of this questicm, I have something special to say to another side of the House — a distinct class in it. I mean the members coming from siaveholding States. There is evidently a feeling of opposition in that quarter to the admis- sion of Oregon, from a reluctance and manifest indisposition to increase tlic number of what are called free States. Tliis arises from an appre- hension that, with the loss of the balance of power, the righls of our section upon constitutional ques- tions will be less secure. This may be so. it does not, however, necessarily follow. But that balance is already gone — lost by causes beyond your or my control. There is no prospect of its ever being regained; aTid, in taking that ground, you do but reverse the jiosition of our sectional opponents on the otherside of the House. I know it is the tendency of power to encroach; but let us look to the security which rests upon pi-in- ciplc, rather than upon numbers. The citadel of our defense is principle sustained by reason, truth, honor, and justice. Let us, therefore, do justice, though the heavens fall. Let us not do an indirect wrong, for fear that the recipient from our hands of what is properly due will turn upon us and injure us. Statesmen in the line of duty should never consult their fears. Where duty leads, there we may neVfer fear to tread. In the political world, great events and changes are rajiidly crowding upon us. To these we should not be insensible. As wise men, we should not attempt to ignore them. We need not close our eyes, and suppose the sun will cease to shine because we see not the light. Let us rather, with eyes and minds wide awake, look around us and see where we are, wlience we have come, and where we shall soon be, borne along by the rapid, swift, and irresistible car of time. This immense territory to the west has to be peo- pled. It is now peopling. New States are fast growing up; and others, not yet in embryo, will soon spring into existence. Progress and devel- opment' mark everything in nature — human so- cieties, as well as everything else. Nothing in the physical world is still; life and motion are in every- thing: so in the mental, moral, and political. The earth is never still. The great central orb is ever moving. Progress is the universal law governing all things — animate as well as inanimate. Death itself is but the beginning of a new life in a new form. Our Government and institutions are sub- ject to this all-[)ervading power. The past won- derfully exemplifies its influence, and gives ua some shadows of the future. This is the sixteenth session that I have been here, and within that brief space of fifteen years, we have added six States to the Union — lacking but one of being more than half of the original thirteen. Upwards of twelve hundred thousand square miles of territory — a much larger area than was possessed by the whole United States at the time of the treaty of peace in 1783 — have been added to our domain. A\ this time the area ofour Republic is greater than that of any fivi> of the greatest Powers in Europe all combinetl; greater than that of the Roman Empire in the brightest days of her glory; more extensive than were Alexander's dominions when he stood on the Indus, and wept that he had no more worlds to conquer. Such is our present position; norare we yet at the end ofour acquisitions. Our internal movements, within the same time, have not been less active in progress and develop- ment than those external. A bare glance at these will sufl^ce. Our tonnage, when 1 first came to Congress, was but a little over two million; now it is upwards of five million, more than double. Our exports of domestic manufactures were only eleven million dollars in round numbers; now they are upwards of thirty million. Our export.? of domestic produce, staples, &c., were then un- der one hundred million dollars; now the}'' are upwards of threi: hundred million! The amount of coin in the United States, was at that time about one hundred million; now it exceeds three hundred million. The cotton crop then was but fifty-four million; now it is upwards of one hun- dred and si.xty million dollais. We had then not more than five tliousand miles of railroad in operation; we have now not less than twenty-six thousand miles — more than enough to encircle the globe — and at a cost of more than one thousand million dollars. At that time, Professor Morse was engaged in one of the rooms of this Capitol in cxperimeniing on his unperfectcd idea of an electric telegraph — and there was as much doubt about his success, as there is at present about the Atlantic cable — but now there are more than thirty-five thousand miles in extent of tiiese iron nerves sent forth in every direction through the land, connecting the most distant points, and uniting all together as if under the influence of a common living sensorium. This is but a glance at the surface; to enter within and take the range of other matters — schools, colleges, the arts, and various mechanicaland industrial pursuits, which add to the intelligence, wealth, and jirospcrity of a people, and mark their course in the history of nations, would require time; but in all would be found alike astonishing results. This progress, sir, is not to be arrested. It will go on. Tlie end is not yet. There are persons now living who will see over a hundred million human beings within the present boundaries of the United States, to say nothing of fuiure exten- sion, and perhaps double the number of States we now have, should the Union last. For myself, I say to you, my southern colleagues on this floor, that I do not apprehend danger to our constitu- tional rights from the bare fact of increasing the number of States with institutions dissimilar to ours. The whole governmental fabric of the Uni- ted States is based and founded upon the idea of dissiniiliarity in the institutions of the respective members. Principles, not numbers, are our pro- 1 tection. When these fail, we have, like all other ' people, who, knowing their rights, dare maintain ! them, nothing to rely upon but the justice of our cause, our own riglit arms and stout hearts. With these feelings and this basis of action, whenever any State comes and asks admission, as Oregon does, 1 am prepared to extend her the hand of welcome, without looking into her constitution further than to see that it^'is republican in form, upon our well-known American models. When agijression comes, if come it ever shall, then the end draweth nigh. Then, if in my day, I shall be for resistance, open, bold, and defiant. I know of no allegiance superior to that due the hearthstones of the homestead. This I say to all. I lay no claim to any sentiment of nationality not founded upon the patriotism of a true heart, and I know of no such patriotism tliatdoes not center at home. Like the enlarging circle upon the sur- face of smooth waters, however, this cati and will, if umrbstructed, extend to the utmost limits of a common country. Such is my nationality — such my.sectionalism— such my patriotism. Ourfathers of the South joined your fathers of the North [ in resistance to a common aggression from their | fatherland; and if they were justified in rising to right a wrong inflicted by a parent country, how much more ought we, should the necessity ever come, to stand justified before an enlightened world, in righting a wrong from even those we call brothers. Thatnecessity , I trust, will nevercorne. What is to be our future, I do not know. I have no taste for indulging in speculations about it. I would not, if I could, raise the vail that wisely conceals it from us. " Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof," is a good precept in everything pertaining to human action. The evil 1 wo'idd not anticipate; I would rather strive Jto prevent its coming; and one way, in my judg- ment, to prevent it, is, while here, in all things to do what is right and proper to be done under the Constitution of the United Slates; nothing, more, and nothing less. Our safety, as well as the prosperity of all parts of the country, so long as this Government lasts, lies mainly in a strict con- formity to the laws of its existence. Growth is one of these. The admission of new States, is one of the ol'jects expressly provided for. How are they to come in.' With just such constitutions as the people in each may please to make for them- selves, so it is republican in form. This is the ground the South has ever stood upon. Let us not abandon it now. It is founded upon a prin- ciple planted in the compact of Union itself; and mori- essential to us than all others besides; that is, the equality of the States, and the reserved rights of the people of the respective States. By our system, each State, however great the num- ber, has the absolute right to regulate all its in- ternal affairs as she pleases, subject only to lier obligations under the Constitution of the United Slates. With this limitation, the people of Massa- chusetts have the perfect right to do as they please upon all matters relating to their internal policy; the people of Ohio have the right to do the same; the people of Georgisf the same; of California the sami'; and so with all the rest. Such is the machinery of our theory of self- government by the people. This is the great nov- elty of our peculiar system, involving a principle unknown to the ancients, an idea never dreamed of by Aristotle or Plato. The union of several distinct, independent communities upon this basis, is a new principle in human governments. It is now a problem in experiment for the people of the nineteenth century upon this continent to solve. As I behold its workings in the past and at the present, while I am not sanguine, yet I am hope- ful of it.s successful solution. The most joyous feeling of my heart is the earnest hope that it will, for the future, move on as peacefully, prosper- ously, and brilliantly, as it has in the past. If so, then we shall exiiibit a moral and political spec- tacle to the world something like the prophetic vision of Ezekiel, when he saw a number of dis- tinct beings or living creatures, each with a sepa- rate and distinct organism, having the functions of life within itself, ail of one external likeness, and all, at the same time, mysteriously connected with one common animating spirit pervading the whole, so that when the common spirit moved they all moved; their appearance and their work being, as it were, a wheel in the middle of a wheel; and whithersoeverthecommon spirit went, thither the others went, all going together; and when they went, he heard the noise of their motion like the noise of great waters, as the voice of the Almighty. Should our experiment succeed, such will be oiir exhibition— a machinery of Government so intri- cate, so complicated, with so many separate and distinct parts, so many independent States, each perfect in the attributes and functions of sover- eignty, within its own jurisdiction, all, neverthe- less, united under the control of a common di- recting power for external objects and purposes, may natural enough seem novel, strange, and in- explicable to the philosophers and crowned heads of the world. It is for us, and those who shall come after us, to determine whether this grand experimental problem shall be worked out; not by quarreling amongst ourselves; not by doing injustice to any; not by keeping out any particular class of States; but by each State remaining a separate and dis- tinct political organism within itself — all bound together for general objects, under a common Fed- eral head; as it were, a wheel within a wheel. Then the numbermay be multiplied without limit; and then, indeed, may the nations of the earth look on in wonder at oftr career; and when they hear the noise of the wheels of our progress in achievement, in development, in expansion, in glory, and renown, it may well appear to them not unlike the noise of great waters; the very voice of the Almighty— Fox pojndi ! Vox Dei .' [Great applause in the galleries, and on the floor.] The SPEAKER. If the applause in the galle- ries is repeated, the Chair will order the galleries to be cleared. Many Members. It was upon the floor. Mr. 'STEPHENS, of Georgia. One or two other matters only I wish to allude to. These relate mainly to ainendments. I trust that every friend of this bill will unite and vote down every amendment. It needs no amendment. Oregon has nothing to do with Kansas, and should in no way be connected with her. To remand her back, as the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. M.\r- siiall] proposes, to compel her to regulate suf- frage as we may be disposed to dictate, would be buTgoing back to the old attempt to impose con- ditions upon Missouri. There is no necessity for any census, if we are satisfied, froin all the evi- dence before us, that there are sixty thousand inhabitants there. Florida was admitted without 8 a census. Texas was admitted, with two inem- bers on this floor, without a census. So was Cal- ifornia. To our friends upon this side of the House, let me say, if yon cannot vote for the bill, assist us in having it voted upon as it is. Put on no riders. Give us no side blows. Aid in keeping them off. Let the measure stand or fall upon its merits. If you cannot vote for the bill, vote against it just as it stands. I sec my time is nearly out, and I cannot go into the discussion of other branches of the ques- tion; but may I not make an appeal to all sides of the House to come up to do their duty to- day.' I have spoken of the rapid development of our country and its progress in all its material resources. Is it true that the intellectual and moral development of our country has not kept pace with its physical.' Has our political body outgrov/n the heads and hearts of those who are to govern it.' Is it so, that this Thirty-Fifth Con- gress is unequal to the great mission before it.' Are wc progressing in everything but mind and patriotism.' Has destiny cast upon us a heavier load of duty than v/e are able to perform.' Are we unequal to the task assigned us.' I trust not. I know It is sometimes said in the country that Congress has degenerated. It is for us this day to show whether it is true or not. For myself, I do not believe it. It may be that the esprit du corps may have some influence on my judgment. Some- thing may be pardoned to that. But still I feel that I address men of as much intelligence, reflec- tion, talent, integrity, virtue, and worth, as I have ever met in this Hall; men not unfit to be the Representatives of this great, growing, and pros- perous Confederacy. The only real fitness for any public station is to be up to the requirements of the occasion, whatever that be. Letus, then, vindicate our characters as fit legislators to-day; and, with that dignity and decorum which have so signally marked our proceedings upon other great, excit- ing questions before, and which, whatever may be said of our debates, may be claimed as a dis- tinguished honor for the present House of Rep- resentatives, let us do the work assigned us v/ith tiiat integrity of purpose which discharges duty regardless of consequences, and with a patriotism commensurate with the magnitude of the subject under all its responsibilities. Printed at the Congressional Globe Office. IN EXCHAIMME JWN 5 1917