*>% *$>■ o . j^agfvjj^vflj °o *o. ,*« • o„ '_> V °o <>' »• ~ *.«. <»v *°^ • • ■ ° A° s*» • » * **- ^ ** * <><»■•♦ ♦«-♦♦ .*£ta \^ .-ss&fcfc. ♦*_♦♦ VV " ,# AT ... -A ^ A ^^ y ^ o V ,o«», / ^°^ -J ^ looks North and ooutu, J^ast and West, for customers ; and cares very little from wW direction they come, if they only pay their toll. I tfank GoTthat am not such a conservative. I thank my Maker that Pie so created me that I am capable of feeling earnest convictions ; and that H, mXXt "*** m ° ral C ° Ur ^ e t0 W themln theS^ ^ £* v Ji Car o h f ll ^ ested th at a compromise may be effected hv which, if the South will agree to surrender everything of the sub stance on another question, she will be allowed to retains* thins «f the substance upon this proposition ; in plain En-lish that "• bfi e e ;^v liscrimi r tin f tiriff ' if we -» <^ be levied upon coal and iron and other northern production then certain northern men will yield enough of their oppositiof 2m this question to give us that sort of protection which will be reo red for t7ked l o7 TKW" tHe Ten ' it01 " ieS - J haVe ^ardS'S Wked of. I find the proposition embodied in a very weU-written letter from a former member of this body, a distinguished [I ,1 " ° of iNew Jersey-I meanCommodore Stockton. I h^e ea rd itspokenof here and elsewhere It therefore comes in a form sufficiently irntsTn J to induce me to look at it, and address myself to it I Tend an X T Z Z*$i? C ° mm0d - e *°*»?» *» SecretaV^ The Secretary read as follows : "I am for peace— I am for the Union— and therefore T *rA ft™- ™„™,„- will insure peace. The North is infuriated Ji th I tf, • * , co ^ ces310n - * concession faithfully with the requisition of the fuSi^Xe law To^ ?"% 2 " Com P J 7 southern fellow-citizens to take their slave proper^ -into thrToZl^™ ^ *$* ° f ° U1 ' tion there under the Constitution of the S£ lemtories, and to i to protoo- "Wh^le the South in return should concede ' snpo ifi<-> rlnt;,,* > ,, ; tariff' than that at which the North at preset so S TneSl y complain T* **"*****. Mr BROWN. It is thus seen, Mr. President, that we have the broad proposition submitted to us to surrender our' opposition ?6 pro- VhtT 7i T' t0 f G "^ l hat WG ma ? ° btain ™ constitutional rights I say it m all respect to gentlemen ; but never can H brought to the point of buying my constitutional rights from an? one Sir, we are entit ed to have our slave property protected, or we are not" If we have the right, it is your duty to respect it ; to respect it wth out qualification. If we have no such righto, then we Should make no such demand. Now, what we ask is, respect for a right -uarantted oy the Constitution What is it that the tariff party ask? ° Tha vou will so shape your legislation as to do them a Lvov. I have not un derstood that the most zealous and earnest advocate of a protective" tariff ever claimed that Congress was bound to afford him protection but only that Congress might afford it, if Congress thought fi There' lore the cases are not equal. ° J-'iere- askm tn e dn k H ' t0 p Si T Ve n- P an a^ 1 ^ "J**- Is it quite modest to asknsto do this? Is it quite modest in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, represented, as they are, upon this floor, and by an overwhelm- in o- Free-Soil majority in the other wing of the Capitol, making con- sistent and persistent war upon our slave property ; Pennsylvania represented here by a moderately active friend to the South and to the whole country, [Mr. Bigler,] and by a warm and zealous opponent of slavery on the other side of the Chamber, [Mr. Cameron;] New Jersey represented in the same way, by my honorable friend, [Mr. Thomson, J and by his colleague on the other side, [Mr. Ten Eyck;] and both of them in the other House by an almost united Free-Soil delegation ; is it quite modest in those States, who thus make war upon slave prop- erty, to ask the owners of that species of property to allow it to be taxed for their benefit ? What would Pennsylvania think, what would IS ew Jersey think, if the South should ask their people to submit to taxation, that our people might realize larger profits upon their investments in land and slaves ? Suppose I had invested $100,000 in a plantation and slaves, and found that it was not paying— that it did not yield me three per cent, upon the investment : how long, let me ask my friend from New Jersey, [Mr. Thomson,] or from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Bigler,] and their colleagues on the other side, would Pennsylvania and New Jersey listen in patience to my appeal that their people should be taxed that I might realize larger profits ? And yet, that is their ap- peal ' You tell me that you have invested large sums of money in manufacturing establishments, mills, and machinery, and all that sort of thin*, and that your profits are very small ; and you ask me to tax the people whom I* represent, through the agency ot discriminating tariff laws, to enable you to realize larger profits. This you do, 1 repeat, while you are making war on the very people who buy your croods, and consume your iron and your coal. Is it modest I Can you really expect us to do it? Can you expect us to tax our slave labor for the benefit of your white labor ? m Sir the protection which we ask is, protection for the property itself'- not that incidental protection which will enable us to realize larger profits. The property itself is in danger ; war is levied upon it and it is threatened with destruction. In this state of things, we come to the common Government, and ask it to interpose its authority to shield our property from destruction. Sir, if your cotton nulls and your shoe factories ; if your machinery, if your iron works and your coal mines, were menaced by an enemy about to destroy them, to destroy the actual property itself, and you came to me as a southern Senator, and asked for assistance, I would say, "Yes, we will send the armies of the Government to protect your property and do what- ever the case requires." If the property of our northern brethren was threatened with destruction from any quarter, and they appealed to me to pass additional laws for its preservation, I would not hesitate an instant. If it was threatened by the incendiary, it it was threatened by mob violence, if it was invaded from any quarter, and was about to be destroyed, I should hold it to be the duty of the Govern- ment to interpose, not only with its armies, but, through its legislative authority, clothing the courts, and arming the Executive with all necessary power for its protection. I mean to be explicit on this point. Now what do we ask Our property is thus menaced. It ha already been driven out of Washington, Oregon, California, Nebraska Kansas and, to a great extent, from Utah, receiving protection nc where but in the Territory of New Mexico. War is made upon it persistent war ; war in the States and war in the Territories- an when I come to ask you for protection, what do you tell me?' If will give you that sort of protection to your manufacturing establish ments i, your coal mines, and your iron furnaces, that will Enable yoi to realize larger profits, then you will consider the proposition to pro tect my actual property, not my profits, but the property itself reject the proposition with scorn. But, sir, while it is admitted by many northern men that we liav, not had justice m the Territories, that our rights have not beei respected as they should have been, they yet tell us that we are no pursuing the right remedy in the right way ; that, instead of comim to Congress, we ought to go to the courts, and there, armed with tin common law and the Constitution as expounded by the Supreme Court, we shall find adequate and sufficient protection I will pea my respects very briefly to this argument of the Constitution and th common law Before I proceed to do so, I will send to the Secretary'* desk, and ask to have read, a paragraph from the speech of ™ honorable friend from Indiana, [Mr. Fitch.] The Secretary read, as follows : " But j 1 lss f d if Congress does not give this protection, it can nowhere be found From this opinion I d.ssent. It can be found in the common law It now exists in kZI . , a the common law, without any congressional or other leg^ativt ena'tmen If any s ecies" property has pecuhant.es rendering other than a common law remedy nees rvfoH n taction, it - the d uty of the local Legislature to grant that Tem^^ZXZiStion wa« requ.red in tins District, it would be the duty of Con«£ T P 8 ™? 1 ^ tbe conviction What has Nebraska done? WUh£ ffiSAfi 1 * , i &rtl in the face - a bill, by large majorities, thro eh bo th hr I I ^ 8he has P assed not merely refusing to give woteftion £ i nChe8 ° f her Le ^lature, tory, but absolutely cine lin t f om tl ^ P -° PCr ^ in that T ^ri- only saved from becom n~ a°h v ^1 " ^^ ™* bil1 wa * Governor. The executive'veto held in n ^ lnter Position of the on the part of that Le<42 m^ t>eDS3 a P ° sitive hostile act Kansas has not only refffli^ Wis^onl/tT " /"" this species ot pronertv lint oh* i ^ ie » lh . la «on for the protection of a lav/over the' If efo t' ,**ta 2V? ^ ^ ^ of thirty to seven, absolutdy e^ellin" '.I * ""^ Seea U stated > Territory. I repeat ' then to mv fH™ f r P ro l ,ert y from the unwilling he ma'y be to be i ve ?t X J„ T t In t ana ,'. that "°™ver and must foroe the convietion home on Mm ^ ^ n? ^ '? the face snoSrH^^S^r^Htor'/r lDdia " a - ™~* just see protection 4'hie d, tat Stwf taf ""^ There we not «3J existence of slavery. Does mv ft IL ft 8r T e ? assed Prohibiting the bled for legislation to-day is not ten nS? IT* 1 * 1 * We are assei *- dotte, the place where Kan If miIes , ? orth or 80uth of Wvan- an anti-slavery SSSSS Dot E?1 ^^^on to form Does it exist profitably all around us r 7 - f "t P rofitaU 7 here? Virginia ; look into their n w • * G ° mto dryland ; go into whether slavery does not evi ^1 m^^ 8 ' and co ™ and tell me latitude with LnZXdrttF^L 1 ? *>« *«"> in the same it has not existed profitably for ?J F f 3 \ lnf f r ">r soil ; and whether W*-thrtit0MBrtTS*£| 7 TrS Undred ^ ears ' and yet we are productions. The &&» ^^ and 8dl *° * cuctmns are the same. The r ^ are fi v. V f ^ 1§ V1FSln Soil > the P">- slaveholding States, lyin^in the sanf/l ^*> °^^ rd of a H the ware, Maryland, Virginia \wT lat \ tude Wlth Kansas-Dela- ^■^ti^ki2^ 1 ^3& -^Missouri, containing a existed since the early settlement nf 1?° tateS m which slavery^ introduction of the bla k acTon thi, " ?T^ ° r from the earliest all times, and exists proSablv now "SkST* 5 GXisted P rofita % a t cannot be introduced in? , KansaH W, ^ "5 told that ^aves productions forbid it. g?r I beW n ' l he ^ and climate and "WJ i believe no such thing. If the master 10 A?".- S v. Mm MarvTand laws to protect U. *«. in Kansas and he will' lSgh to scorn your arguments about climate and sod and pro- '"But'hat has been the course of this Territorial ^ffXtl^I ,bo. d it commend itself, as it seems to do, not only to Republicans, w t BemocTats ? What are its appeals to your forbearance ? It ^SfSUnK r ^peri^d paction , and they Vip pfficient for the exclusion of slaveiy Horn a lermui^. i tea you, w. Spnator f r0 m Illinois are in lull force m Kansas promulgated %J^J*^Xb*£. the precise result which he pre- r$K '' My ^^SitoX«Sd tl-se doctrines as I do ; hut when % ZZ^to apply the corrective, they pause, hesitate, and finally abruptly -jrefcse. protection of slave Hayl tv g the Pe " titude of the L gisTature'then became one of non- property the f^f^^ poin f s tands as though Kansas had done action. 1 lie case up 10 m * \ „™wtfn0" save property, nothi e. T ESSES = .= p~.-.« tsrC' protection, ^J^^/^very many other things have tell me to wait until by ™ 4 ^'?™" h ^ m h i rea dy to interpose. SS myTient £SH £££. & all is lost. But more on ^f^dZm Indiana tells me that whatever rights I have under This is about the extent to which my honorable friend go*.. ■ B 11 almost ask the Senator from New York [Mr. Seward] whether he to take away from me a right guarantied bv the Constitution and bv the common law, as expounded by the Supreme Court? If I can establish a constitutional right, through the courts, unaided by Ms active interference, I doubt very much, if the Senator were President wfl? not i:° U ? "^ f/ ^>*i«»* inmyfavorexecuTed It n dn 1 ? ! 6 W ° rld - mUCh ' then ' if J ^ that my gratitude is B M X l ^ P T 18e i 8 °. tbis khld fror » a democratic friend of b1 L f ' n0t on ^. doe8 this Government refuse that sort ent tied W it t PTf* " ^ T! ? ritori -. te »«* I tldnk it entitled but it has denied us protection everywhere. It totally ignores the very species of property which constitutes the Treat moneyed interest of the country. There i s directly and indirectly de pendent upon the security of that property, investments of more t] an of" L ff ^Tl 0i d °u 1IarS - Destr °y 0Hr 12,000,000,000 worth of slaves and you destroy the value of the soil on which they work LZlZZtt VS "\° f a11 °** ««H«*y ; our stock becomes worth" less commeice is broken up; our cities dwindle and perish ; and yet Mr, this great mterest-the greatest individual interest under the Wernment-gets no protection from the Federal head How difFe ! ently does it act to wards others ! Wherever your property -oe o tt he land or upon the sea, Government stretches over it the s ron ' arm of its power and protects it. *«*trag arm laefnigltTfte Sfbefor^ " T the , stereot ^ ^-* 'hat the ui ul, or tne night before, seventeen slaves had been sniri^d +« ssncKaSsSfSr^aasR?** States say? They wo„ Id eo to Tl f P 1 "' th S "on-slaveholding and i ,7ni PCrty ™* P 1Ten U P' "^-intercourse would he eelared o ?Am caudLC'rt •'' P reCeirin " and waling ti,estol™S by the sSling oTbkod G0Vernm - t W0l 'ld reseat the outragefeveu doeVSt'ow &££ tZ l!n, YOrk ' tM ^«*^J Aether he proDertv was t.l "«„ ? T i < the oourseo( his section if northern off P a nnl o a : ,oH ar n5 wortI,°if ; ,rS '' "* " e 56eS , ° Ur ^^ ca ''™u he 'turns npTn u] w h 7 s ' v ^^ ^[> «£ *™ »l'l*»« to him", your equals in the Confederal ^" S V aW , ay - Are we not youis.^ i know not; sir> what other men ^ ^ ^ ^ « sive had 12 goes unheeded; yours would ^^enedto^ protection But say gentlemen on our side, in >our appeals ™ I h i5ut, t>.^ e ^aencv of Congress, you are departing Irom tnc A^g^^/^party^tto doctrine of non-intervention been said on that bisect. « i *, _ i endeavor to iQ tbC n .Tt eSt i ^tKinWe 1 ^ tolled J, pnvate letter from ZSS&&H of InS, ol a prLimmt member of the House, and now in retirement. He says . and will wish you success.". I have already replied to that point. He continues : To that, also, I have replied. . We do this for two reasons ; fust, it is not in our power to send to Congress men to aid you." We never asked impossibilities. We only say try. I mean to treat the question with entire fairness It * *™\*»* weVu agree to the doctrine of non-intervent ,on , bu t tt was to^the rWtrine of non-intervention as applied to the points wuju m i l&oints were the Wilni.t proviso and the > doctrin that a Tern torial legislature might P'°P«£ «*^ ac°com- power of Congress or the power ot aTemtora ^ 1S g ^ plish this result ; our opponents on the Republican siue, _ ?he Democratic side, asserting that Congress had the ^powe ^ b & lar^e majority of the northern Democrats taking the ro Territorial Legislature could L accomplish h - { f^ ii ^ ot m allow Con- southern men denying it. We were asked Wl iyj* o ^ -ress to act and to affirm the power ; and then, it you are * Svfng the act is unconstitutional ^^^^XZ Court and have the act overthrown ? Our ^V *£ i. 13 S^tX'KK 3? £22* t0 S ° bef ° re * —t un- Congress. To this' ex tent we a- f Pmi ° n ' .° ne ** 0r the ot ^ by terpose your antfi^^^^JJ^*«««oii ; do not'ii not interpose it in our favor - * C ° Dtent that *<>* ^ Well, sir, what have wo Anno? xw i and the eourt has affirmed ou?sicl «7S V ° ^ before the »nrt, determined that Con ' ? •? ? er . ntorial ^^latura, and Congress having no power to eonT r 1 de ™ 8 . from <*»«>«* exercised by a ttnWSSite^^^^ Cannot be propositions has been affirmed no! L* And*hn«j our side of the two to its legitimate and proi^r cone u's^n T ^T £? beea worked oufc the case has been fully met i ? ' he f \ ocfcn ^ « at an end ; point, the Senator from Illinois 1^ > e " irel * ^ttled. At thi trine, a doctrine never hea do f IZTt ™ • i" alt <^<* new doc- could have applied became if In! 'j° W llcl1 our agreement never that a TerviL^U^Z^Z^^ e V? ^tence-the doctrine nothing, may as effectuX ?L ? i unfriendI 7 action, and by doin- legislation, "stilir^l^,^ ^^ ^ - ^n f ress could by direct niont made very often in *i,„ us ~t llave seen the state- members of Con-re am S^iTTTt*** heard !t affirmed by pat forth to J.rov°e t a Td refd letterTv. 1 T See ". elaborate ^ 18 still affirmed, I ., ay hat we M * , & J he 0De J" st Induced-it interpose in defease JtA^e ZomltXti^l C ° Ugrm nCTer *°»ld to leave the whole qnestSn 'toX .ople o{Z°7 '' ■ '" "7" a » reed agreed that if the people thought '^T ♦ , e ler " tol T J that we all have them ; and if thev fS» P '° 11er to have slaves, they nihdit were not to take them tUt f L^f n °,Y° Uve «**.&*« way of proving this declaratim. 1 £ ¥ eed to an ^ suoh thing. By Senators, rerybriefly, to tome of mv fo!n £*!? ,° "P the attotio » ^ In a speech pronounced by mefnX S ae f c J? rat ' on s °n this point. 1 lei "tone S) whether by Con-res, or tl . T -f- • V^ 011 ' ''>" whomsoever exercised in dressmg myself. Now, I wdlT „ n naqt ,°; daJ "' 'fc to which * am atI " to show you that I have never at , t ■> T oth er remarks of mine, poss.be degree from this Sine V)n tf' fe^ I? the sli ghn reviewing a speech pronounced bv\ ? ^ ? f Febl ™T> '850, I uuonnceci by a then eminent Senator from 14 Michigan, nowtl, See^^SUte,^^ -«- « the people of the TemtorieB .have ttengM ^^fstie government Again. t aid sustain the action of the people of Ca I to rnia d ^ ^^ t t . • th.sc parts of the speech of General Cass, £££•> further than this-to the extent of « To " But he understood General Lass as go s ^ their terrlt orial giving to the people of the Territory ; the , nght to £clude ^ ^^^ by c ^ Sstelce, and, indeed, hefore gove ^J 1 * ot *^ ° Cass to be, that the occupants of the prolM t «M it to the last. x used this i ang uage : Aga m on the 13th day ot may, i > regulate their .. ^ruit the right of •**~**'.* 1 , SS SSffi t Jt . Ute tod- domestic affairs in their own way I fr ee ly ana in i y themselves, and to suit iTtfimselves in a country. witho ^^^ ^ fringe the rights of the owne« themselves. But in doing this | they ™* **°£ r e lumdrcd or one thousand American £* and proprietors of the soil. If, for e^rnpie, t Bntam| um nhabitea one species of property and %°™ ^^meni ; and any attempt to exercise it wouM ;X J: assrs S5&SS3 * - «. ^ P o* er , wh Cn » M Seywere mere tenants at mil." ^ langua ge : Again, on the 8th of August, of the same year .. Give u the Constitution, as it was admin fcteied ^ the %«*£%* the relation and we are satisfied ; up to that time Congress "JJ^TSS equal protection ; give * to of master and servant. It extended **%*£*£?££ this we will not accept. You us to-oav in the same spirit, and we are ^f d " "f^ to ho nor the glorious banner of ask us to love the Constitution, to revere M* Un on and to h ^ B ^ ^ the stars and stripes. Excuse me, gentlemen ou a J supe rstitious reverence foi the day has gone by when I and my people can .cnen £ ^ ^ ^ degree eouak and we will remain in ''"^V™ fo,!,«lvB, our lives, and our property. Sand the protection of the Court*, ton te. o ^ ".J^ it ma „„ the KTon £ 2. ^S3£E£~* to our proper* una our^e The Senator from Illinois [Mr. =f ] the o«te-lay asserted,, the boldest and most emphatic ^^^^ on tie Democratic Kansas-Nebraska bill there was a umted ^Xorite theory of non- side to abide, through all time to come/ hy ms on ^ intervention I desUe Jo ^J^Xf— able 25th of May, 15 any amendments; but I do not mean that the bill .hull pass without my saying to the Senate and to the ccmnry that there are two amendments .vhieh I intended to have pro- Sf Ml ■! 'f DOt a T Iread7 indicated - to «stinct t,rms, that it is resolved to piss St ^ ,n ?! Present 1 form - I ? m not going to run counter to the sentiment of the SenaS hut when I have a clear and distinct opinion upon any subject, I am willin- to exor^s that opm.on be ore the Senate and before the world; and having a cL convfc Ln upon my mind that there are at least two defects in this bill, I wish, before the vote s token to point them out I am willing that it may stand on record, for me or a^ains n e throu X A ter^e i kfa "ft M heSC •"'" defeCt - S " ThC firSt lB iQ th ° ^eentlf section "f Cffi Alter speaking ot the Missouri compromise, it says : '"Which, being inconsistent with the principles' of non-intervention by Congress with ^avery in the States and Territories, as recognised by the legislation of [ 8 50, common called the compromise measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void ' commonI > of 15!S!3 * N*?."! the WOnls which relate t0 the compromise measures of 1850, from the word 'with,' in line twenty-three, to the word 'is,' in line twentv-si* and insert • the Constitution of the United States:' so as to make it read ^whTch l befo* inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, is hereby (leclared inopera iVe and roid I would much rather stand by the Constitution than by the compromise I hw much more respect for the Constitution than for the compromise. I need no say that I T We h Ve T ^^^promise, am not for it now and never expect to & or it I have been for the Constitution, am for it now, and ever expect to be for it. I acmuesce in the compromise Of I860, just as we all did in the compromise of 1820, without f approving With what propriety, then, can it be said that I agreed to the doctrine of non-intervention as laid down in the compromise of 1850, mjthe Kansas-Nebraska bill, or anywhere else ? Sir, I am at a loss to de- termine Ihese two points I never have waived. I never considered at any time, in any place, or under any circumstances, that the people ™£ vS had . a " s ^ t0 exclude slavei T- I ^ver yielded the point which I insist on to-day, that Congress is bound to interpose every- where, upon the sea and upon the land, for the protection of my prop- erty and the property of my section, of my State, of my people, to the eameextentthatitinterposesfortheprotoctionofotherpeople'sproperty. ■J2u ?b D ,°u fl T NeW T° rk ' f Mr - S ™d,] in his very elaborate speech the other day, as other Senators had done before, undertook to show that slavery was not only detrimental to the best interests of the master, but a great wrong to the slave— to the black man. 1 take issue with those propositions ; and without undertaking to elaborate the points necessarily involved, I declare again, as I did in reply to the Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. Doolittle,] that, in mv opinion, slavery is a great moral, social, and political blessing— a blessing to the slave, and a blessing to the master. The evidence on which I amrni that it is no hardship to the black man, is found in this : that lour millions of the negro race in the slaveholding States of this Union are to-day in a better condition, morally, socially, and religiously, than four millions of the same race anywhere on the face of God's Habitable globe I submit that proposition to the honorable Senator ; ana it there be four millions negroes on the four continents so happy, so contented, so well provided for, so moral, so religious, and occupy- ing so high a social position as the four millions of southern slaves, tell me where they are to be found. If they are to be found neither in their native land nor in foreign climes, then how do you assume mat they have been debased in their servile condition ? How do you prove that slavery has degraded them, if they are better off than their race anywhere else? But, sir, I have made up some very brief statistics, to show that 16 the black man in a state of slavery is more prosperous, and physically more vigorous, and multiplies his species in a greater ratio than he does in any other condition. I find in looking into national statistics that from 1810 to 1820—1 take 1810 because that was immediately after the slave trade was abolished— the slaves of the Unitejl States increased twenty-nine per cent.; the free blacks twenty-seven per cent. (I omit fractions.) From 1820 to 1830 the slave increase was thirty per cent., and the free black thirty-four per cent. It will be recol- lected that that was a season when the spirit of emancipation was abroad ; when Maryland was upon the very eve of emancipating her slaves • when Delaware virtually abolished slavery, retaining it only in name; when the southern slaveholding States generally were inclined to emancipate their slaves ; but even under this state of things, the free black population only gained four per cent over tne slave° population. From 1830 to 1840 the slaves increased twenty- three per cent., and the free blacks twenty per cent. From 1840 to 1850 what do we find? While abolition has been rampant all over the North ■ while the underground railroad has been doing a most active and energetic business ; but while the Southern people, no longer yielding to a former feeling in favor of emancipation have been holding their negroes in bondage, absolutely refusing to do what tney had done for ten or twenty years before, emancipate them in large numbers ; this being the state of the case, what do we find from lo4U to 1850 ? That the slaves increased twenty-eight per cent., and tne free blacks but twelve per cent. , . . c e I have also made up some statistics as to the relative increase of free blacks in the slave States and in the free States. From 1810 to Ib^O, their increase in the slave States was twenty-four per cent, and in the free States, thirty-one per cent. ; from 1820 to 1830, m the slave States, it was thirty-four, and in the free States, thirty-three per cent. ; from 1830 to 1840, in the slave States, it was eighteen, and in toe free States, twenty-four per cent. ; from 1840 to 1850, it was, m the slave States, ten per cent., and in the free States, fourteen per cent. It must be constantly borne in mind that thefts, escapes, and volun- tary emancipation gave the North great advantages, whne the South increased only from natural causes. I deduce, "Mr. President, from these figures, this conclusion: that the negro, not only in the non-slaveholding States, but m the slaveholding States, multiplies his species more rapidly in a state o, slavery than* he does in a state of freedom ; that the ratio ot increase is greater in a state of slavery than in a state of freedom. 10 that extent, then, I am justified in deducing that other conclusion at which I arrived long since, and enunciated the other day : that, as a physi- cal being, and in every possible aspect in which he can be regarded, he is more prosperous in a state of slavery than in any other condi- jl °The Senator from Illinois, on the other side of the Chamber, [Mr. Trumbull,! told us the other day that slavery was a great wrong to the negro/inasmuch as it violated his inalienable rights as a man ; that the negro, like the white man, in the language of the declara- tion of Independence, was created equal, born free, and entitled to 17 certain inalienable rights ; and among these were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Senator afterwards qualified his state- ment by admitting that cases had arisen and would doubtless arise again, when these inalienable rights might be taken from the indi- vidual by society for the good of society. He admitted that the con- vict upon the gallows was deprived of his inalienable right to life ■ that the convict in the cells of a penitentiary was deprived of his inalienable right to liberty ; and that the man upon the gibbet and he in the prison were both cut short in the pursuit of happiness ihus he admitted that this boasted inalienable right might be taken even from white men, as it had been and would be again, if the good of society required it. I thank the Senator for the admission With this admission, I shall not be required to establish that you can take other inalienable rights from the white man or the black man if the good of society requires it. If, then, I have made good my position that slavery is no wrono- but a positive blessing to the black man, I have but to ask you to allow that southern society can judge for itself whether it is injured by slavery more than it would be by freedom to the black man If our safety, if our good, if our security, if our prosperity is promoted by reducing the black man to a state of slavery, and we do him no wrong thereby, then I turn to the Senator from Illinois and ask him whether, in depriving the negro to another extent than the one ad- mitted by himself of his inalienable right to liberty, I have done any wrong or violated any principle of the Declaration of Independence ? 1 he good o. society requires you to hang a white man, and you hano- mm. I he good ot society requires us to enslave the black man and we enslave him. Speaking of the Declaration of Independence, I beg to say to that Senator, and others who constantly allude to it, that it is of authority only as an argument. The Declaration of Independence is the memorandum upon which is founded the contract entered into by the States. It is not the contract itself, nor is it any part of it. The Decla- ration of Independence was addressed to the king and the Parliament and the people of Great Britain. It simply formed a basis of action when the convention was assembled to make the Federal Constitution' Ihe Constitution is the contract, the Constitution is the compact, the Constitution is the bargain into which we entered ; and it is useless to read to me the mere memoranda on which the contract was based tor the purpose of overthrowing the contract itself. Every lawyer knows that, whatever may have been the basis of a contract, it is not binding on the parties after the contract itself has been written out signed sealed, and delivered. It is the Constitution which is bind- ing. I make these remarks simply to show, that Senators waste a great deal ot time unnecessarily in reading the Declaration of Inde- pendence, even if their construction of its language is right, which I by no means admit; but, even admitting that their construction is right 1 want my rights secured, guarantied, and protected, as it is provided in tne Constitution, and not as you say it was suggested in the Declaration of Independence. Mr. President, the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Saulsbury] took 18 occasion the other day to denounce these resolutions of mine as mere abstractions. I beg to remind the Senator that the resolutions call for direct, immediate, and positive legislation — legislation needed by us, and guarantied, as I believe, to us by the Constitution. Shall I be charged with bringing in a list of abstractions when I introduced a proposition, as I believe, at the right time and in the right place, calling for such legislation as the people whom I represent absolutely require for the security of their property ? Is that an abstraction which looks to positive action on the part of this body? which calls on the Legislature and the Executive to give us such laws as will afford us protection to our lives, our liberties, and our property ? Is it any more an abstraction that I should call for protection for my slaves, than that gentlemen from New England should call for pro- tection for their shipping and their merchandise? Is it any more an abstraction that I should call for the protection of my elave property than that the Senator should move a resolution looking to an improve- ment of the breakwater in the Delaware Bay? These are not abstrac- tions. I beg to remind the Senator that these are resolutions which look to positive legislation. I purposely avoided subjecting myself to the imputation of having brought mere abstractions before the Senate, Mr. SAULSBURY. Will the Senator from Mississippi allow me a moment, as he has referred to a remark that I made in reference to his resolutions ? Mr. BROWN. Certainly. Mr. SAULSBURY. What, Mr. President, were the contents of the resolutions offered by the Senator from Mississippi ? Did the resolutions themselves propose any immediate legislation ? Not at all. They were simply declaratory of certain principles, upon which there was a division of opinion among the people of the country. They declared, first, that the law-making power, wherever lodged, was bound to protect slave property; and that, if a Territorial Legis- lature neglected to perform this duty, which was incumbent on them, then it would become the duty of the Federal Congress to provide that protection. Did he show a single instance where any person pro- fessed to be aggrieved by non-legislation, either by a Territory or by Congress ? Did he present a petition from any slaveholder, in any part of the whole country, asking for this protection? Did he cite a single instance where wrong or injury had been done by withholding this protection ? Not one, at that time. His resolutions, in them- selves, did not contemplate legislative action, and he proposed no im- mediate legislative action. I think, therefore, I was right in declaring, as I did, that the resolutions of the Senator, as well as the resolutions of a kindred character which were then before the Senate, were simply resolutions in reference to abstract questions of legal right. Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I am very sorry that my resolutions have been before the Senate for nearly two months, under debate every week during that time, and that the Senator has not found what is in them. The second resolution instructs the Committee on Terri- tories to incorporate into any bill that they may report for the organi- zation of new Territories positive protection to slave property. The Senator says I did not propose any direct and immediate action. 19 Mr. SAULSBUR* . But the Senator did not show that there was a single slave in any Territory that was about to be organized so as to prove the necessity for such legislation. Mr. BROWN. I have not learned that ray duty as a legislator re- quires me to be absolutely idle until somebody petitions me to be ac- tive. I knew my duty, sir, and I undertook to discharge it. My dutv was, as I conceived, to see that that adequate protection which was extended to every other species of property, should be afforded to slave property in the Territory of Kansas. I do not need to have petitions sent to me to put my thoughts in motion, and stir me up to the perform- ance of my constitutional duty. Sir, do we never legislate here ex- cept on petitions ? If the Senator knew that the interest of Delaware was being destroyed, if he knew it as a citizen and as a Senator, would w ™\\ or woud f« wait u«til somebody petitioned him to act? Would he consider himself as bringing in an abstraction if he pro- posed legislation which he knew, as a citizen and as a Senator, his State required ? ' Mr. SAULSBURY. Now, I beg leave to answer that question, and to show that there is nothing parallel between the case which the resolution ot the Senator contemplates, and the case that he puts to me in reference to the interest of Delaware. Does the Senator know of a single unorganized Territory in the United States which is now being sought to be organized into a Territory where there are anv slaves to be protected ? Does he know of one where a single slave- holder exists whose rights are about to be injured by anv action of the people of such a Territory? J * Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir ; I know that the rights of slaveholders are assess: violated ' but that * ey ha - be - ***> s Mr. SAULSBURY. There the Senator applies it to organized terri- M SnwSr ?? 8 t TQ in referen <* to unorganized territory. Mr. BROWN. If the neglect, the cold neglect, of Congress to afford protection to this property in the organized Territories has resulted in the exclusion of slavery from them all, saving only New Mexico, had I not a right to conclude that, if other Territories were organized wi bout that protection, they too would be deprived of Th s light? If the non-action, if the neglect of Congress/added to the non-action and unfriendly action of Kansas, Nebraska Washington California and Utah, has resulted in the exclusion of slavery 1' om Pike's Pell A'" aUd y iT g ^^ ¥ 1 n0t a H - ht t0 concl ^e f£ Pike s Peak Arizona, Jefferson, and Dacotah, and all the other Terri- ories about to be organized, would also be deprived of slaves thron"h Lis a th, e t a w g h nCieS ' TheD T aSln0t ri ^ ht in the first instanced insist that when you propose to organize Territories, you must incor- porate the principle of protection into their charters? 7 The sir as to the Territories already organized, I proposed a bill which I suppose my friend from Missouri, whom I do not see in his seat, the cha rTan clrl h ? V^T'r ° U T r h0Tie8 > t Mr " Grekn '1 wil1 take very good That bil w Sl ? P 'i a Vf St lm , ta aft6r the cWleston conve^fion That bill was intended to overthrow the unfriendlv and unconstitu- 20 tional legislation of Kansas, and to afford the slaveholding States their equal privileges in that Territory. Now, sir, if the Senator from Delaware, and others, want to know what has been the action of Territorial Legislatures in reference to the protection of property of all kinds, let them consult this and other similar volumes. It is the laws of Kansas. I have not the time to read these laws ; but, to show you that that Territorial Legislature felt itself called upon to protect everything else but slavery, I will read the titles of some of their statutes. Here is an act concerning apprentices ; an act concerning attorneys at law ; an act concerning bills of exchange and negotiable promissory notes ; an act concerning bonds and notes ; an act for the speedy recovery of debts due on bonds and notes ; an act to regulate contracts and promises ; an act to provide for the punishment of offenses against the public health ; an act con- cerning divorce and alimony ; an act to prevent the sale of intoxicating liquors and games within certain districts ; an act concerning land- lords and tenants ; an act for the regulation and management of the territorial library ; an act respecting lost money and goods ; an act concerning estrays ; an act to prevent trespasses ; and so on. This shows that that Territorial Legislature was not disposed to leave everybody else as it left us — to the tender mercies of the Constitution and the common law. It interposed, by positive legislation, to protect every species of property except slave property. Mr. SAULSBURY. Will the Senator pardon me one moment? I do not wish to be misunderstood. I do not wish to place myself in the position of denying the propriety of equal protection to slave prop- erty with any other species of property in a Territory. When the Senator shows an actual case where the slaveholder has been wronged in any Territory of the United States by the action of a Territorial Legislature, and where he has no adequate remedy to redress that ■wrong, I, for one, shall be as ready to vote for the protection of slave property in a Territory as I would for the protection of any other spe- cies of property. I have no sympathy with those who deny that slaves are "property, and just as completely and just as fully as any other species of property known to any law of any State of this Union ; and I have no disposition to deny to that species of property any protection which any other species of property has afforded to it ; but the differ- ence between the Senator and myself is simply this : he supposes that there is a present and actual necessity for such legislation ; I have not seen that present necessity. Mr. BROWN. I have already shown that Kansas passed laws in the beginning to protect this kind of property. I have shown you that she repealed those laws and substituted nothing in their stead. I now go further, and show you that in derogation of the authority of Congress, and in violation of its laws, the people of that Territory have assembled through their delegates in convention, and made an anti-slavery constitution, thug setting the authority of Congress at defiance. I next show you that they have passed a law positively abolishing slavery in the Territory, thus setting the authority of the Supreme Court at defiance. I then go one step further, and show you that they have passed, within the last few days, a personal liberty 21 bill, more odious in its terms than even a similar bill passed by the Legislature of the State of Massachusetts. I send the bill to the Sec- retary's desk, and ask him to read it. The Secretary read, as follows : AN ACT to secure freedom to all persons within the Territory of Kansas. ^ifhinV.'—r'' h l the G u 0t u r ?° r and Le Z islati ™ Assembly of the Territory of Kansas : No person wthinth.s remtory shall be considered as property, or subject, as such, to sale, purchase or dehvery : nor shall any person, within the limits of this Territory, at any time be deonved of liberty or property without due process of law. 7 ' ae P nveu ^ S /fi' 2 'a ^process of law, mentioned in the preceding section of this act, shall, in all cases be defined .o mean the usual process and forms in force by the laws of the Territo v ami by jury 7 C0UrtS therC ° f '' and UndGr SUCh pr ° CCSS SUch p ' rso » s sha11 b ° entitled to a tnal H^n'H^ heneVer !i n - y , perS0n , in this Territory shall be deprived of liberty, arrested or deta.necTSn the ground that such person owes service or labor to another person 3 lv reside either with,,, or without this Territory, either party may claim a trial by i^v and in Jh^deSam^ 6 *** b ° nefiU ° f ^HeWpn.videJfo/by llw, in anySe, Ml^oweS W T/L'l; EVC T pe T D f W 8ha ! 1 . de P rive - °* attempt to deprive, any other person of his or S5SBH 3 Uie P r iS,0 " S ° f th , 6 P reoedin « 8ecti ™ 8 of «* ■«* •«»«». ««> convic- tion thereof, forfeit and pay a fine not exceeding $2,000, nor less than f 500, or be imprisoned in some jail in the Territory for a term not exceeding imprisoned in » I'™ 5 ' EV / ry PerS ° D ,,Vh ° 8ha11 h0ld ' 0r attempt t0 hold - in this Territory, in slavery, or as a slave, any free person m any form, or for any time, however short, under a pretence that such person is or has been a slave, shall, on conviction thereof, be imprisoned i th peniten SKssasfa*.' tenn not less thaa one year - n;r more than »^*ot repealed. *" aCtS ' *** ^'^ ° f ^ iacon8istent with the provisions of this act, are hereby Sec. 7. This act shall take effect from its passage. Mr BROWN. Thus we sec, Mr. President, that the Territorial Legislature of Kansas deprives us of our rights by non- action and untriendly action ; goes on and adopts a constitution in violation of the authority of Congress ; passes a law in derogation of a decision of the Supreme Court positively prohibiting slavery ; and then winds up the whole affair with that personal liberty bill ; and still we are asked to told our arms and rely on the Constitution and the common law to give us protection. Sir, the gentlemen who have so much faith in courts, unaided by statutory laws, go far ahead of the teachings of my experience. Why, sir, I should as soon think of proceeding against John Brown, to get back again into the armory at Harper's I< erry by an action of ejectment, relying on the court to give me a judgment of ouster, and then sending the sheriff with his ©owe to turn him out, as to rely on the courts, aided only by the Constitution and the common law, to give me protection for my rights, in the face of such legislation as this. What I demand is protection— that protection which you admit we are entitled to under the common Constitution. Give it to us now ; do it at once. You see what delays have produced. You see of what right, ot what liberty, of what privileges, we have been deprived by your non-action heretofore. Still you ask us to wait. We have lost lerntory after Territory beyond redemption, and all for what? Not because the soil and climate and production were against us, but be- cause we had no law to protect us. We waited under these specious pleas that our rights would not be snatched from us, until they are 22 gone without hope of recovery. We come again and ask protection, and you tell us still to wait. Sir I find published in the gazettes of the day a series ot resolu- tions ' said, I have no reason to doubt, correctly, to have been agreed upon in a caucus of Democratic Senators. To the first, second, and third, and to the sixth and seventh of those resolutions, I make no ob- jection, and therefore shall offer no comment. The fourth and fifth do not so precisely meet my approbation. The fourth resolve is in these words: - i Resolved That neither Congress nor a Territorial Legislature, whether by direct legis- remains" I have only a verbal criticism to make on that resolution. I like the word " right" better than the word " power." I can see very well that a Territorial Legislature may have the power to accomplish •the result without doing it rightfully. I have seen that result ac- complished already ; accomplished wrongfully ; still it was the exer- cise of power. I have no expectation, no belief, that the word was introduced with any other than the same purpose that I would have, if I substituted a different word ; and therefore I criticise the intro- duction of it here in no unfriendly spirit. I suppose ;^™ inte ^ ed to be used as synonymous with the word » right. J\ ith that alter- ation in the resolution I should be satisfied. The fifth resolution is in these words : "5 Rmlved, That if experience shouM at any time prove that the P^*» d .^^ remed^for That purpose, it will be the duty of Congress to supply such defic.ency. ^ Sir I think the duty of Congress commences at an earlier period than is designated in this resolution. I am not willing to wait tor experience to demonstrate that which experience has already demon- strated So far as my individual action is concerned I base it upon my own conviction that experience has proved in the last seventy years all that experience will prove for seventy years to come bir, it ex- rer ence lii not already shown us that protection by direct and im- mediate legislation, is necessary for the security of slave : prope y in the Territories, in my opinion it never will demonstrate that iac . 1 have said before, and now repeat, in this connection ^at exWnce in every one of the slaveholding States has shown that legislation is necessary in aiding the Executive and judiciary to give protection to S s kind of property Such legislation has been found necessary ■ m Mississippi, necessary in Louisiana, necessary in all the s laveho ding States wVthout a solitary exception, so far as I am mfomed or bel ve If experience has shown that legislation is necessary in all the s aye States why are we called upon to wait until experience shall demon- st^tha/a like necessity exists in a Territory? I see nc > reason f it I think experience has shown us that, unaided by statutory aw, tlavery hasnot been protected in Kansas ; it has not been pro- tected in any of the Territories ; but it has been driven out by the force of pubHc opinion in derogation of the rights of the master, and, • 23 as I honestly believe, in total disregard of the guarantees of the Constitution. emedSs" if "^ territorial S overnment should fail or refuse to provide the necessary Why, sirs, have they not already failed and refused ? Have I not read document after document from Kansas, showing that they have failed and refused? Why wait? If you are going to legislate actively, when it shall he shown that they have failed and refused then you must do it now. They have failed ; they have refused ' they have passed positive laws hostile to slavery— personal liberty bills ; bills abolishing slavery ; bills repealing former laws protecting slavery II all this does not prove that Kansas has failed and re°- fused, r^fo not know what evidence we shall require to be convinced on that point. Only, Mr. President, with a view to indicate my own clear convic- tions on this subject, and with no expectation that the proposition is to be received with greater favor in the Senate than it was received elsewhere, I give notice that when this resolution is brought to a vote ot the Senate, I shall move this amendment : That experience having already shown that the Constitution and the common law, unaided by statutory enactment do not afford adequate and sufficient protection to slave property l°Z e Zt jT lt0 /r S hlVing faUed ' ° therS havin S refused > to Pass such enactment This become the duty of Congress to interpose and pass such laws as will afford to slave p operty in the Territories that protection which is given to other kinds of property. P ro Pe"y I say that it is my purpose to propose this amendment. I shall vote for it myself If it tails, then I shall vote for the resolution as it stands, and chiefly because of the concluding words. When these things shall have happened, when we get the necessary experience, and when the Territorial Legislature shall have been shown to fail and refuse, then the resolution says "it will be the duty of Confess to supply such deficiency." In that, I get a recognition of the prin- ciple for which I contend, that it is your duty to act. You refuse to act now. That is the gravamen of my complaint. You want a greater amount of evidence to bring your minds to the conclusion than I require to bring my mind to the conclusion. I think both the contingencies on which you base your determination to act, to pass Jaws for the protection of slave property, have already happened! I do not feel, myself, that any further experience is necessary to demon- strate tnat the courts, unaided by statutory law, cannot afford pro- tection I think we have abundant evidence that the Territories some of them, at least, have failed and refused to afford this protect tion ; and so thinking, I am prepared to act now. If my friends will not be convinced, I will signify my own convictions ; and then sit down quietly, and wait until their minds are brought to the same conclusion as my own. I hope, if we are ever to have protection, wc shall get it whue it may be useful, and not have it mockingly slaVer Territories are hopelessly lost to the South and to To talk merely about protection, and to do nothing, is a very idle ceremony. If we present a case demanding protection, you ought to meet it ,ike men. If we have no case, say so, and let us quit talking 24 about it. Promises about what Congress will do years hence, when we shall be out and others in our places, are not worth the paper on which they are recorded Apologizing, Mr. President, for having detained the Senate so long, I yield the floor. 25 REPLY OF SENATOR FITCH. Mr FITCH said : Mr. President, some of the remarks of the senator from MiBsfesippi call for a brief T > frQm me <» ~ dulgence of the Senate for but a very short time, aware, as I am, from the lateness of the hour, that members must be extremely anxious To leave the chamber. The senator spoke in complimentary terms of the supposed efficacy of my professional, my medical prescripts bu? appears ad verse to taking my political prescriptions-deems them inert 1 trust it will be many years before the senator requires a prescription wTtht't [?*? °t! S? b ° dily h x> ealth - M ^ y he Hve a thourand y ars without a single bodily pang. But, sir, he is badly diseased politically ; £St?w W , D ?? r ^ l r e i th ? disea8e ' or > Percemng it, will no admit its existence. He is like the victim of that scourge of our race in variable climates-the consumption ; the victim who, even while passing away under the ravages of the disease, natters himself that hL LhX p ,n:r it; r, d fancie ? that his friencis > wh ° se ■«**>£££ £™ *« ^aily about him, are laboring under some strange senator that he is the subject, and likely to become the victim of a nrTafrtT^ 011 ?^ 1 ^" 1 ^- P °«ibly /could Point out the appro! prescription for his benefit, possessed of curative powers equal to those he has been pleased to assign to my professional. But I much fear he ^Cld e not a ra! ndlCated *"■' P W0U T ld « 0t «*<** ^ treatment Vha me and thot St ^ ^f cri P tl0n 1 5 1 m *<* fear me that he prefers to Sent NoHW a g Wlth , me T ° Ur rem ^dies, to patronize an emi- nostnfm I lr whT^' ^T* \?* Uy a P°™caf empiric, and his us tX tW ■ > the S ? Dat0r WlH not llimself > as hG h^ assured suit ThL llT V Tl nost ™ m8 > deemin S them poisonous, yet he con- toward h is S£j* thGir effect f/!Pon others, and pursues such course toward his nostrums as may well induce others to take them tect sLTfnr^Prt'v Slgned *° pr °I e thafc the COmmon law cannot pro- tect slave property, is an argument against the truth of history Afri- he ommL7al firS V, nt ; 0C l UCed int0 ^^ and ifcs P™*"™" imder law T\Z • i i Jt firSt , Came t0 this C0Uutl T ^ev the common elrs its Ww' a / d th r°"S ho »t the English dependencies for jears its sole protection from the common law-years durin- which it most flourished ; years during which it acquired that vi "or which has e P xLCrtl;vfn ft H- thi8t ^ e ' P"* I™'** the --to^dl said wlS I r i 7 i S C0Untl T> but wherever the Anglo-Saxon race which ft has W " g0Vernm « n , t ' eXC6pt in the P articular ^«tances in rtnvltr s «P e rseded by particular legislative acts. It exists Inboth^ States but in Territories alike. in both anke it is recognized by the courts, except where it comes in 26 conflict with some constitutional legislative enactment. Well, sir, one of its first axioms is, that every right has its remedy. I would say, then, to the senator from Mississippi, he has but to establish his right, and the remedy necessarily goes with it. The Constitution has assefted the right of the South as coequal with that of the North in the Territories. The Supreme Court has affirmed this right. _ The Constitution, the courts, and the common law, will protect the right. A territorial legislature may so regulate as to improve that protection. If it refuses so to do, it practices the doctrine of non-action recently inculcated, and evades its duty ; but it cannot go any further in that direction ; it cannot violate its duty and the Constitution by destroy- ing, or even impairing, the right ; however, it may make the attempt. A modern school of politicians reasons thus : if a territorial legisla- ture has the right to protect and to regulate the protection of slave property, it has the right to impair its value ; if it has the right to impair its value, it has the right to destroy it. What absurdity of reasoning, if it can be called reasoning ! My friend from Mississippi dissents from the rationale, but arrives at its conclusion. The Constitution guaranties to every citizen life, liberty, and his property. The Constitution, the courts, and the common law protect these rights. A legislature may so regulate as to improve this pro- tection. A legislature may, for instance, vary the punishment for a violation of these lights. It may vary the punishment for taking life; but does the power to vary the punishment for taking life carry with it the power, by direct or indirect action, to lessen the value of the life of the innocent citizen? the power to place his life in daily jeopardy? the power to destroy his life ? The latter proposition might as well be maintained as a similar one relative to the power to protect property. I shall allude to but one— time will not allow more — of the senator's illustrations in support of his opinion that the common law is impo- tent to the protection of slave property. He asks, " if, a man decoys my slave from one county to another adjoining, what remedy have I ? ' ' He admitted that he had a remedy, but objected that the remedy must necessarily be applied day after day. We can look at this illus- tration made by him in the very same light with another illustration which I have heard, if I mistake not, from the same senator. At all events, I will couple the two. It has been objected to the common law that it contained no provision against, and provided no punish- ment for, selling liquor to slaves ; and that, in the absence of such law, their owners might find them, at times, not only useless and troublesome, but mischievous. The difficulty in both cases, in the illustration of to-day and the previous one, is not in punishing the act, but it is in proving it. Laws exist, I presume, in every slaveholdiug State prohibiting and punishing the sale of spirits to slaves, prohibit- ing and punishing the decoying away of a negro. If a negro, when he is owned as property, is found in the possession, without permission of law or owner, of some other person, the possession implies the fact that such person has decoyed him away, and is proof sufficient; but if he is found running at large, no one is responsible for his being so, unless the fact can be carried home to some individual that he did decoy him away. How is the fact to be established ? Or if a slave 27 is found intoxicated, and thus useless, how are you to prove that any white man sold him spirits in violation of law ? You cannot do it under the existing statutes. The slaveholding States, and several of the non-slaveholding, prohibit a negro's testimony being received against a white man ; and the white man will decoy the negro, or sell him spirits in the presence of only the negro race. What, then, is the senator's remedy, if he has it not under the common law ? Would he come here and ask Congress to do that which his own legis- lature has declined doing — put the negro on a level with the white man in the courts, put his slave on an equality with the senator himself before a court? Surely he would not ask that kind of congressional legislation ; and if he did, respect for ourselves, if not for the gov- ernment of which we are a part, would compel us to deny it. He points us to the action of the legislatures of Nebraska and Kansas in proof of the necessity of congressional intervention, and in justification of the intervention he asks in his resolutions and bill. What is that action ? The legislature of Nebraska passed a law pro- hibiting slavery. The governor vetoed it, and the veto was sus- tained. Surely, on this abortive attempt at usurpation of power, the senator cannot base an application for protection of slave property in Nebraska, even if property of that kind existed there for protection, which is not the case. The legislature of Kansas passed a similar act, and that, too, was vetoed, but passed again over the veto. The sen- ator, in commenting on the resolutions last introduced by his col- league, stated that the remedies for protection of southern property in Territories, except such remedies as Congress might afford, were exhausted, and therefore Congress must intervene. Not so, even in Kansas. The judiciary yet stands between the right sought to be destroyed by the Kansas legislature and the usurpation by which the destruction of that right is sought. Who can doubt what the decision of that judiciary will be ? No one who has read the Dred Scott decision can for a moment doubt that the courts, upon appeal, will declare the recent attempt at usurpation in Kansas, by a prohibitory act, null and void, and leave the owners of slave property there in the possession of their common-law remedies for protection — remedies which, in my estimation, will be found quite sufficient. This action to which he has pointed was the first, but the legitimate, fruit of the doctrine promulgated by the senator from Illinois, (Mr. Douglas ;) and it was hastened or induced in part, doubtless, from a supposition upon the part of the territorial legislatures that the overshadowing influence of that senator would induce a congressional sanction of their usurpation. When this expectation has been disappointed, as it will be, and when those legislatures have been rebuked by the courts for their attempted usurpation, as we know in advance, from the Dred Scott decision, they will be, such action will not be repeated by those or any other territorial legislatures, and the doctrine on which it is based will soon cease to be entertained ; unless, indeed, the senator from Mississippi and others who may be disposed to aid him secure the nomination for the presidency of the main pillar of the doctrine, and thus make it a settled governmental policy. 28 The absence of any special legislative protection for slave property may, I grant you, subject the owners of that property to inconveni- ences, to annoyances ; but certainly to none greater than are the owners of other self-moving, locomotive property daily subjected — inconve- niences and annoyances requiring vigilance for the preservation of property, but not affecting its title, nor necessarily its possession. We must not create, and we should not be asked to create — and I doubt our right to grant the request if it is asked — rights either for the North or for the South, by legislation ; but it is our duty, the duty of every department of the Government, to see that rights granted by, or recog- nized by, the Constitution, receive adequate protection. The power of the judiciary to grant such protection cannot be questioned ; because the judiciary derives its power from the Constitution, which asserts the right ; and the judiciary was created by that Constitution for the very purpose of asserting and defending rights under it. Hitherto, the courts have been found possessed of the required means for the ad- equate exercise of that power. If, at any time hereafter, they are found deficient in those means, and the local legislature refuses to grant them, it will be the duty of Congress to supply the deficiency in support of the courts ; but it is not the duty, and scarce the right, of Congress to grant that general legislation in advance contemplated by the Senator's resolutions, and asked by his bill. Such legislation would be a departure, as he has well said, from that great principle of non-intervention we have so long sustained — a principle now so necessary, as it has been heretofore, for our success ; and not only for t'hat, but so necessary for harmony between the Northern and South- ern wings of the only party which has its members from the lakes to the Gulf. As with the senator's special "decoy " argument, adverse to the common law, so with his others ; their fallacy generally can be shown ; and, indeed, the impolicy and inutility, one or both, of most of the congressional legislation he asks for the Territories, can be easily de- monstrated ; but I do not design to consume the time of the Senate with any lengthy arguments on the subject. I shall leave them to abler heads. Far better leave the protection of an established right to the Constitution, the courts, and the great unwritten common law, which is the sense of right among intelligent men, their common sense and that of the courts, than to that over-legislation asked for in the senator's bill, and which would subject him to more inconvenience, more annoyance, in observance of its provisions, than will the absence of all legislation. 29 APPENDIX. February 23, 1860, Mr. Brown introduced the following bill, which, haying been twice read, was referred to the Committee on Territories, Mr. Green, chairman. AN ACT to punish offences against slave property in the Territory of Kansas. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Section 1. That every person, bond or free, who shall be convicted of actually raising a rebellion or insurrection of slaves, free negroes, or mulattoes, in the Territory of Kansas, shall suffer death. Sec 2. Every free person who shall aid or assist in any rebellion or insur- rection of slaves, free negroes, or mulattoes, or shall furnish arms or do any overt act in furtherance of such rebellion or insurrection, shall' suffer . death. Sec. 3. If any free person shall, by speaking, writing, or printing, advise persuade, or induce any slaves to rebel, conspire against, or murder any citizen of said Territory, or shall bring into, print, write, publish, or circulate or cause to be brought into, printed, written, published, or circulated, or shall knowingly aid or assist in bringing into, printing, writing, publishing or circulating in said Territory any book, paper, magazine, pamphlet, or circular lor the purpose of exciting insurrection, rebellion, revolt, or conspiracy on the part of the slaves, free negroes, or mulattoes, against the citizens of said territory, or any part of them, such person shall be guilty of felony and on conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than 'ten years. Sec 4. If any person shall entice, decoy, or carry away out of said Terri- tory any slave belonging to another, with intent to deprive the owner thereot of the services of such slave, or with intent to effect or procure the freedom of such slave, he shall be adjudged guilty of grand larcenv and on conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than five nor more than ten years. t Sec 5. If any person shall aid or assist in enticing, decoying, or persuad- ing, or carrying away, or sending out of said Territory any slave belon°-ino- to another, with intent to procure or effect the freedom of such slave' or with intent to deprive the owner thereof of the services of such slave 'he shall be adjudged guilty of grand larceny, and, on conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned at hard labor tor not less than five years, nor more than ten years. Sec. 6. If any person shall entice, decoy, or carry awav out of any State or other Territory of the United States any slave belonging to another with intent to procure or effect the freedom of such slave, or to deprive the owner thereof of the services of such slave, and shall bring such slave into said territory of Kansas, he shall be adjudged guilty of grand larceny in the same manner as if such slave had been enticed, decoyed, or carried away out of said Territory of Kansas, and in such case the larceny may bo charged to have been committed in any county of said Territory of Kansas into or through which such slave shall have been brought by such person' and, on conviction thereof, the person offending shall be imprisoned' at hard labor tor not less than five years, nor more than ten years. 30 Sec. 7. If any person shall entice, persuade, or induce any slave to escape from the service of his master or owner in the said Territory of Kansas, or shall aid or assist any slave in escaping' from the service of his master or owner, or shall aid, assist, harbor, or conceal any slave who may have escaped from the service of his master or owner, shall he deemed guilty of felony, and be punished by imprisonment at hard labor for not loss than five years, nor more than ton years. Sec. 8. If any person in the said Territory of Kansas shall aid or assist, harbor or conceal any slave who lias escape 1 from the service of his master or owner in another State or Territory, such person shall be punished in like manner as if such slave had escaped from the service of his master or owner in the said Territory of Kansas. Sec: l .l If any person shall resisi any officer while attempting to arrest any slave that may have escaped From the service of his master or owner, or shall rescue such slave when in custody of any officer or other person, or shall entice, persuade, aid or assist such slave to escape from the custody of any officer or other person who may have such slave in custody, whether such slave has escaped from the service of his master or owner in said Ter- ritory of Kansas or in any State or other Territory, the person so offending shall be guilty of felony, and punished by imprisonment at hard labor fur not less than two years, nor more than live years. Sec 10. If any marshal, sheriff, or constable, or the deputy of any such officer, shall, when required by any poison, refuse to aid or assist in the arrest and capture of any slave who may have escaped from the service of his master or owner in any Territory or Slate, such officer shall he lined in a sum of not less than one hundred dollars, nor more than live hundred dollars. Sec. 11. If any person print, write, introduce into, publish, or circulate, or cause to be brought into, printed, written, published, or circulated, or shall knowingly aid or assist in bringing into, printing, publishing, or circulating within the Territory of Kansas any book, paper, pamphlet, magazine, hand bill, or circular containing any statements, arguments, opinions, sentiment, doctrine, advice, or innuendo calculated to produce a disorderly, dangerous, or rebellious disaffectiqn among the slaves in the Territory of Kansas, of to induce such slaves to escape from the service of their masters, or to resist their authority, he shall be guilty of felony, and be punished by imprison- ment and hard labor for a term not less than five years, nor more than ten years. * Sec. 12. If any free person, by speaking or by writing, assert or maintain that persons have not the right to hold slaves in the Territory of Kansas, or shall introduce into the said Territory, print, publish, write, circulate, or cause to be introduced into the said Territory, written, printed, published, or circulated in said Territory any book, paper, magazine, pamphlet, or circular containing any denial of the right of persons to hold slaves in said Territory, such person's shall be deemed guilty of felony, and punished by imprisonment at hard labor for a term riot less than two years, nor more than live years. Sec 13. No person who is conscientiously opposed to holding slaves, or who does not admit the right to hold slaves in the Territory of Kansas, shalL sit as a juror on the trial of any prosecution for any violation of any of the sections of this act. Sec 14. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to cause this law to be published for sixty days from and after its passage in at hast three news- papers in the Territory of Kansas; and from and after the expiration of such period it shall be in full force. 54 »» rocv -• »°rk : : A. , ^^ A> V* r f « • •* ** % m & .w IT* .«? ^6< "b^ * at *u • *°** «feV* ♦^ : .W: a»"% fe\ /&&>* /s^kS* *tftf£*°-