^ f\V . « • - *fc- S^u '- o 1 A^^ a ^^ Co : '^K*: "of :Mtc': to* vv > 1 vv • **o* O. ' ..s O^ . • " • * ^c PRICE SIX CENTS. SPEECH OF THE HON. HENRY CLAY, ' OF KENTUCKY, (Dtt Inking an {lis CDrnprnmist Ursnlutinns nti tjjt |ulijtrt nf linnrri[. DELIVERED IN SENATE, FEB. 5th &, 6th, 1850. As Reported by the National Intelligencer. NEW YORK: STRINGER & TOWNSEND, 220 BROADWAY. 1850. ORTU.AIT OF HO*. IIDMtY CLAY, Superbly Engraved mi Mid. from a laguerreotype by Anlbony, for nalc bj' Stringer A lownstiid. Price 25 cuts. A liberal discount to Hie trade Cnrapnuiou to tjjp jfirlii fpiti nf Unrtjj iJlmrrirn. FRANK FORESTER'S FISH AND FISHING OP THE UNITED STATES AND BRITISH PROVINCES. Illustrated from Nature by the Au-hor, with Seventy-five highly finished Engravings. BY HENRY WILLIAM HERBERT, ESQ., Author of " Field Sports," " My Shooting Box" " The Deer Stalkers," $c. 1 vol., handsomely bound in cloth, price $2 CO. NOTICES OF THE PRESS. "This is really an elegant, as well as charming and interesting work. The publishers have evidently taken pride in preparing a book on American fish and fishing, an 1 have spire I no expense on (heir part to make the work all that it ousht to be. We know of no book on American fishes and fishins equal to it in value and interest, alike to the sportsman and naturalist." — Corii- mercial Advertiser. "Frank Forester's Fish and Fishing.— This is a continuation of the 'Field Sports' by the same Author, published some time since, and which was so much commended both in England and America. Ol a style of literature which has always been popular, it is calculated to take by the side of "Old Izaak' and 'Sir Humphrey Davy's Silmonia." The designs, if we mistake not, from which the engravings are made, are by Mr. Herbert himself— a passionate lover of the sport, and therefore both accurate and beautiful." — N. Y. Express. "Frank Forester's Fish and Fishing in the United States and British Pro- vinces of North America, is a beautifully printed book, and ornamente I with superb engravings of the most popular fish, which look luscious enough to mike one foil I of the pisca- tory art." Herbert writes like an enthusiastic disciple of old Izaak Walton, an I this work will enhance his already brilliant reputation. All who are fond of the spon should procure copies." — N. O. Delta. "Fish and Fishery op the United States and British Provinces is the title of an elegant book by II, VV. Herbert, just published by Stringer O \%t ME. CLAY'S COMPROMISE RESOLUTIONS. SUBMITTED JANUARY 29TH. 1850. PREAMBLE. — It being desirable for the peace, concord, and harmony of the Union of these States, tosettleuud adjust amicably all questions of controversy between them arising out of the institution of Slavery, up;m a fair equality and just basis— therefore — First— RESOLVED, That California, with suitable boundaries, ought, upon her application, to be admitted as one of the States of this Union, without the imposition by Congress of any restriction to the exclusion or introduction of Slavery within those boundaries. 2d— RESOLVED, That as Slavery does not exist by law, and is not likely to be introduced into any of the territory acquired by the United States from the Republic of Mexico, it is inexpedient for Con- gress to provide, by law, either for its introduction into, or its exclusion from, any part of the said terri- tory ; and that appropriate territorial Governments ought to be established, by Congress, in all of the said territory not assigned as the boundaries of the proposed State of California, without the addition 9f any restriction or condition on the subject of Slavery. 3d— RESOLVED, That the Western boundary of the State of Texas ought to be fixed on the Rio ilel Norte, commencing one marine league from its mouth, and running up that river to the Southern line of New Mexico, thence with that line Eastwardly, and continuing in the same direction, to the line as established between the United States and Spain, excluding any portion of New Mexico, whether lying o.'i the East or West of that river. 4th— RESOLVED, That it be proposed to the State of Texas, that the United States will provide for the payment of all that portion of all the legitimate and bona lide public debts of that State contract- ed prior to its annexation to the United States, and for which the duties on foreign imports were pledg- ed by tbe saiii State to its creditors, rot exceeding the sum of dollars, in consideration of the du- ties, as pledged, having been no longer applicable to that object after the said annexation, but having thenceforward become payable to the United States, and upon the condition also that the said State shall, by some solemn and authentic act of her Legislature, or of a convention, relinquish to the United States any claim which it has to any part of New Mexico. 5th— RESOLVED, That it is inexpedient to abolish Slavery in the District of Columbia, while that institution continues to exist in the State of Maryland, without the consent of that State, without the consent of the people of the District, and without just compensation to the owners of slaves within the District. Gtn — RESOLVED, That it is expedient to prohibit within the District the trade in slaves brought into it from States or places beyond the limits of the District, either to be sold therein, as merchandise, or to be transported to other markets without the District of Columbia. 7th— RESOLVED, That more effectual provision ought to be made by law, according to the re- quirements of the constitution, for the restitution and delivery of persons bound to service or labor, in any State, who may escape into any other State or Territory of this Union. 8th — RESOLVED, That Congress has no power to prohibit or obstruct the trade in slaves between the siavehulding States, and that the admission or exclusion of slaves brought from one into another of them, depends exclusively upon their own particular law. In Exchange University AUG 1 9 1936 THE FLOWERS COLLECTION SPEECH. Me. Clay. — Mr. President, never on any former occasion have I risen under feelings of such painful solicitude. I have seen many periods of great anxiety, of peril, and of danger in this country, and I have never before risen to address any assemblage so oppressed, so appall- ed, and so anxious ; and sir, I hope it will not be out of place to do here, what again and again I have done in my private chamber, to implore of Him who holds the destinies of nations and individuals in His hands, to bestow upon our country His blessing, to calm the violence and rage of party, to still passion, to allow reason once more to resume its empire. And may I not ask of Him too, sir, to bestow on his humble servant now before him the blessing of his smiles, and of strength and ability to perform the work which now lies before him ? Sir, I have said that I have seen other anxious periods in the history of our country, and if I were to venture, Mr. President, to trace, to their original source the cause of all our present dan- gers, difficulties, and distraction, I should ascribe it to the violence and intemperance of party spirit. To party spirit ! Sir, in the progress of this session we have had the testimony of two Senators here, who, however they may differ on other matters, concur in the existence of that cause in originating the unhappy differences which prevail throughout the country, on the subject of the institution of slavery. Parties, in their endeavors to obtain the one ascendancy over the other, catch at everv passing or floating plank in order to add strength and power to each. We have been told by the two Senators to whom I have referred, that each of the parties at the North, in its turn, has moved and endeavored to obtain the assistance of a small party called abolitionists, in order that the scale in its favor might preponderate against that of its adversary. And all around us, every where, we see too many evidences of the existence of the spirit and intem- perance of party. I might go to other legislative bodies than that which is assembled in Con- gress, and I might draw from them illustrations of the melancholy truth upon which I am dwelling, but I need not pass out of this capitol itself. I say it, sir, with all deference and respect to that other portion of Congress assembled in the other wing of this capitol ; but what have we seen there ? During this very session one whole week has been exhausted — I think about a week — in the vain endeavor to elect a doorkeeper of the House. And, Mr. President, what was the question in this struggle to elect a doorkeeper? It was not as to the man or the qualities of the man, or who is best adapted to the situation. It was whether the doorkeeper entertained opinions upon certain national measures coincident with this or that side of the House. That was the sole question which prevented the election of a doorkeeper for about the period of a week. Sir, I make no reproaches — none, to either portion of that House ; I state the fact ; and I state the fact to draw from it the conclusion and to express the hope that there will be an endeavor to check this violence of party. Sir, what vicissitudes do we not pass through in this short mortal career of ours? Eight years, or nearly eight years ago, 1 took my leave finally, and, as I supposed, forever, from this body. At that time I did not conceive of the possibility of ever again returning to it. And if my private wishes and particular inclinations, and "the desire during the short remnant of my days to remain in repose and quiet, could have prevailed, you would never have seen me occupying the seat which I now occupy upon this floor. The Legislature of the State to which I belong, unsolicited by me, chose to designate me for this station, and I have come here, sir, in obedience to a sense of stern duty, with no personal objects, no private views, now or hereafter, to gratify. I know, sir, the jealousies, the fears, the apprehensions which are engendered by the existence of that party spirit to which I have referred ; but if there be in my hearing now, in or out of this Capitol, any one who hopes, in his race for honors and elevation, for higher honors and higher elevation than that which he may occupy, I beg him to believe that I, at least, will never jostle him in the pursuit of those honors or that elevation. I beg him to be perfectly persuaded that, if my wishes prevail, my name shall never be used in competition with his. I beg to assure him that when my service is termi- nated in this body, my mission, so far as respects the public affairs of this world and upon this earth, is closed, and closed, if my wishes prevail, forever. But, sir, it is impossible for us to be blind to the facts which are daily transpiring before us. It is impossible for us not to perceive that party spirit and future elevation mix more or less in all our affairs, in all our deliberations. At a moment when the White House itself is in danger of conflagration, instead of all hands uniting to extinguish the flames, we are con- tending about who shall be its next occupant. When a dreadful crevasse has occurred, which threatens inundation and destruction to all around it, we are contesting and disputing about the profits of an estate which is threatened with total submersion. Mr. President, it is passi jn, passion — party, party, and intemperance — that is all I dread in the adjustment of the great questions which unhappily at this time divide our distracted country. Sir, at this moment we have in the legislative bodies of this Capitol and in the States twenty odd furnaces in full blast, emitting heat, and passion, and intemperance, and diffusing them throughout the whole extent of this broad land. Two months ago all was calm in compari- son to the present moment. All now is uproar, confusion and menace to the existence of the Union, and to the happiness and safety of this people. Sir, I implore Senators, I entreat them, by all that they expect hereafter, and by all that is dear to them here below, to repress the ardor of these passions, to look to their country, to its interests, to listen to the voice of reason — not as it shall be attempted to be uttered by me, for 1 am not so presumptuous as to indulge the hope that anything I may say will avert the effects which I have described, but to listen to their own reason, their own judgment, their own good sense, in determining upon what is best to be done for our country in the actual posture in which we find her. Sir, to this great object have my efforts been directed during the whole session. I have cut myself off from all the usual enjoyments of social life, I have confined myself almost entirely, with very few exceptions, to my own chamber, and from the beginning of the session to the present time my thoughts have been anxiously directed to the object of finding Bjme plan, of proposing some mode of accommodation, which would once more restore the lessings of concord, harmony and peace to this great country. I am not vain enough to kuppoae that I have been successful in the accomplishment of this object, but I have presented a scheme, and allow me to say to honorable Senators that, if they find in that plan any thing that is defective, if they find in it any thing that is worthy of acceptance, but is susceptible of improvement by amendment, it seems to me that the true and patriotic course is not to de- nounce it, but to improve it — not to reject without examination any project of accommodation having for its object the restoration of harmony in this country, but to look at it to see. if it be susceptible of elaboration or improvement, so as to accomplish the object which I indulge the hope is common to all and every one of us, to restore peace and quiet, and harmony and hap- piness to this country. Sir, when I came to consider this subjeet, there were two or three general purposes which itseemed to me to be most desirable, if possible, to accomplish. The one was, to settle all the controverted questions arising out of the subject of slavery. It seemed to me to be doing very little if we settled one question and left other distracting questions unadjusted, it seemed to me to be doing but little if we stopped one leak only in the ship of State, and left other leaks capa- ble of producing danger, if not destruction, to the vessel. I therefore, turned my attention to every subject connected with the institution of slavery, and out of which controverted ques- tions had sprung, to see if it were possible or practicable to accommodate and adjust the whole of them. Another principal object which attracted my attention was, to endeavor to form such a scheme of accommodation that neither of the two classes of States into which our country is so unhappily divided should make any sacrifice of any great principle. I believe, «ir, the series of resolutions which I have had the honor to present to the Se tate accomplishes that object. Sir, another purpose which I had in view was this : I was aware of the difference of opin- ion prevailing between these two classes of States. I was aware that, while one portion of the Union was pushing matters, as it seemed to me, to the greatest extremity, another por- tion of the Union was pushing them to an opposite, perhaps not less dangerous extremity. It appeared to me, then, that if any arrangement, any satisfactory adjustment could be made of the controverted questions between the two classes of States, that adjustment, that arrange- ment, could only be successful and effectual by extracting from both parties some concessions — not of principle, not of principle at all, but of fecliug, of opinion, in relation to matters in § controversy between them. Sir, I believe the resolutions which I have preparea fulfi Ithat object. I believe, sir, that you will find, upon that careful, rational, and attentive examina- tion of them which I think they deserve, that neither party in some of them make any con- cession at all ; in others the concessions of forbearance are mutual ; and in the third place, in reference to the slaveholding States, there are resolutions making concessions to them by the opposite class of States, without any compensation whatever being rendered by them to the non-slaveholding States. I think every one of these characteristics which I have as- signed, and the measures which I proposed, is susceptible of clear and satisfactory demon- stration by an attentive perusal and critical examination of the resolutions themselves. Let us take up the first resolution. The first resolution, Mr. President, as you are aware, relates to California, and it declares that California, with suitable limits, ought to bo admitted as a member of this Union, without the imposition of any restriction either to interdict or to introduce slavery within her limits. Weil now, is there any concession in this resolution by either party to the other? I know that gentlemen who come from slaveholding States say the North gets all that it desires ; but by whom does it get it ? Does it get it by any action of Congress ? If slavery be interdicted within the limits of California, has it been done by Congress — by this Government ? No, sir. That interdiction is imposed by California herself. And has it not been the doctrine of all parties that when a State is about to be admitted into the Union, the State has a right to decide for itself whether it will or will not have slavery within its limits? The great principle, sir, which was in contest upon the memorable occasion of the intro- duction of Missouri into the Union, was, whether it was competent or not competent for Congress to impose any restriction which should exist after she became a member of the Union. We who were in favor of the admission of Missouri contended that no such restric- tion should be imposed. We contended that, whenever she was once admitted into the Union, she had all the rights and privileges of any pre-existing State in the Union, and that among these rights and privileges one was to decide for herself whether slavery should or should not exist within her limits ; that she had as much a right to decide upon the intro- duction of slavery or its abolition as New York had a right to decide upon the introduction or abolition of slavery ; and that, although subsequently admitted, she stood among her peers, equally invested with all the privileges that any one of the original thirteen States had a right to enjoy. And so, sir, I think that those who have been contending with so much earnestness and perseverance for the Wilmot proviso ought to reflect that, even if they could carry their ob- ject and adopt the proviso, it ceases the moment any State or territory to which it was ap- plicable came to be admitted as a member of the Union. Why, sir, no one contends now, no one believes, that with regard to those Northwestern States to which the ordinance of 1787 applied — Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Michigan — no one can now believe but that any- one of those States, if they thought proper to do it, have just as much right to introduce sla- very within their borders, as Virginia has to maintain the existence of slavery within hers. Then, sir, if in the struggle for power and empire between the two classes of States a deci- sion in California has taken place adverse to the wishes of the Southern States, it is a deci- sion not made by the General Government. It is a decision respecting which they can utter no complaint toward the General Govern- ment. It is a decision made by California herself; which California had unquestionably the right to make under the Constitution of the United States. There is, then, in the first resolu- tion, according to the observation which I made some time ago, a case where neither party concedes ; where the question of slavery, neither its introduction nor interdiction, is decided in reference to the action of this Government ; and if it has been decided, it has been by a different body — by a different power — by California itself, who had a right to make the decision. Mr. President, the next resolution in the series which I have offered I beg gentlemen can- didly now to look at. I was aware, perfectly aware, of the perseverance with which the Wil- mot proviso was insisted upon. I knew that everyone of the free States in this Union, with- out exception, had by its legislative body passed resolutions instructing their Senators and requesting their Representatives to get that restriction incorporated in any territorial govern- ment which might be established under the auspices of Congress. I knew how much, and I regretted how much, the free States had put their hearts upon the adoption of this measure. In the second resolution I call upon them to waive persisting in it. I ask them, for the sake of peace and in the spirit of mutual forbearance to other members of the Union, to give it up — to no longer insist upon it — to see, as they must see, if their eyes are open, the dangers which lie ahead, if they persevere in insisting upon it. When I called upon them in this resolution to do this, was I not bound to offer,for a stir- reuder of that favorite principle or measure of theirs, some compensation, not as an equiva- lent by any means, but some compensation in the spirit of mutual forbearance, which, ani- mating one side, ought at the same time to actuate the other side ? Well, sir, what is it that is offered them ? It is a declaration of what I characterized, and must still characterize, with great deference to all those who entertain opposite opinions, as two truths, I will not say incontestible, but to me clear, and I think they ought to be regarded as indisputable truths. What are they? The first is, that by law slavery no longer exists in any part of the acquisitions made by us from the Republic of Mexico ; and the other is, that in our opin- ion, according to the probabilities of the case, slavery never will be introduced into any por- tion of the territories so acquired from Mexico. Now, I have heard it said that this declara- tion of what I call these two truths is equivalent to the enactment of the Wilmot proviso. I have heard this asserted, but is that the case ? If the Wilmot proviso be adopted in ter- ritorial Governments established over these countries acquired from Mexico, it would be a positive enactment, a prohibition, an interdiction as to the introduction of slavery within them; but with regard to these opinions I had hoped, and I shall still indulge the hope, that those who represent the free States will be inclined not to insist — indeed it would be extremely difficult to give to these declarations the form of positive enactment. I had hoped that they would be satisfied with the simple expression of the opinion of Congress, leaving it upon the basis of that opinion, without asking for what seems to me almost impracticable, if not im- possible — for any subsequent enactment to be introduced into the bill by which territorial Go- vernments should be established. And I can only say that the second resolution, even without the declaration of these two truths expressed, would be much more acceptable to me than with them — but I could not forget that I was proposing a scheme of arrangement and compromise, and I could not, there- fore, depart from the duty which the preparation of such a scheme seems to mc to impose, of offering, while we ask the surrender on one side, of a favorite measure, of offering to the other side some compensation for that surrender or sacrifice. What are the truths, Mr. President? The first is, that by law slavery does not exist within the territories ceded to us by the repub- lic of Mexico. It is a misfortune, sir, in the various weighty and important topics which are connected with the subject that I am now addressing you upon, that any one of the five or six furnishes a theme for a lengthened speech ; and I am therefore reduced to the necessity, I think — at least in this stage of the discussion — of limiting myself rather to the expression of opinions, than going at any great length into the discussion of all these various topics. Now, with respect to the opinion here expressed, that slavery does not exist in the terri- tories ceded to the United States by Mexico, I can only refer to the fact of the passage of the law by the Supreme Government of Mexico abolishing it, I think in 1824, and to the subsequent passage of a law by the legislative body of Mexico, I forget in what year, by which they proposed — what it is true they have never yet carried into full effect — com- pensation to the owners of slaves for the property of which they were stripped by the act of abolition. I can only refer to the acquiescence of Mexico in the abolition of slavery, from the time of its extinction dowu to the time of the treaty by which we acquired these coun- tries. But all Mexico, so far as I know, acquiesced in the non-existence of slavery. Gentle- men, I know, talk about the irregularity of the law by which that act was accomplished ; but does it become us, a foreign power, to look into the mode by which an object has been accomplished by another foreign power, when she herself is satisfied with what she has done, and when, too, she is the exclusive judge whether an object which is local and muni- cipal to herself has been or has not been accomplished in conformity with her fundamental laws? Why, Mexico upon this subject showed to the last moment, her anxiety in the docu- ments which were laid before the country upon the subject of the negotiation of this treatv, by Mr. Trist. In the very act, in the very negotiation by which the treaty was concluded, ceding to us the countries in question, the diplomatic representatives of the Mexican republic urged the abhorrence with which Mexico would view the introduction of slavery into any portion of the territory which she was about to cede to the United States. The clause of prohibition was not inserted in consequence of the firm ground taken by Mr. Trist, and his declaration that it was an utter impossibility to mention the subject. I take it then, sir — and availing myself of the benefit of the discussions which took place on a former occasiou on this question, and which I think have left the whole country under the impression of the non-existence of slavery within the whole of the territory in the ceded territories — I take it for granted that what I have said, aided by the reflecuon of gentlemen, will satisfy them of that first truth, that slavery does not exist there by law, unless slavery was carried there the moment the treaty was latified by the two parties, and under the operation of the Constitution of the United States. Now, really, I must say that upon the idea that eo instanti upon the consummation of the treaty, the Constitution of the United States spread itself over the acquired territory, and carried along with it the institution oT slavery, the proposition is so irreconcilable with any comprehension or reason that 1 possess, that I hardlv know how to meet it. Whv these United States consist of thirty States. In fittcen of them .lure was slaverv in fifteen of them slavery did not exist. Well, how can it be argued that the fifteen slave States, by the operation of the Constitution of the United States, earned into the ceded territory their institution of slavery, any more than it can be argued on the other side that, bv the operation of the same Constitution, the fifteen free States carried into the ceded terri- tory the principle of freedom which they from policy have chosen to adopt within their limits? Whv, sir, let me suppose a case. Let me imagine that Mexico had never abol- ished slaver/ there at all-let me suppose that it was existing in point ot fact and m virtue of law, from the shores of the Pacific to those of the Gulf of Mexico, at the moment of the cession of these countries to us by the treaty in question. With what patience would gentlemen coming from slaveholdmg States listen to any argu- ment which should be urged by the free States, that notwithstanding the existence o, sla- very within those territories, the constitution of the United States abolished it the moment rt operated upon and took effect in the ceded territory ? Well is there not just as much ground to contend that, where a moiety of the States is free, and the other moiety is slave- holding, the principle of freedom which prevails in the one class shall operate as much as the principle of slavery which prevails in the other? Can you come, amidst this conflict of interests, principles and legislation which prevails in the two parts of the Union, to any other conclusion than that which I understand to be the conclusion of the public law of he world, of reason, and justice-that the status of law, as it existed at the moment of the conquest or the acquisition, remains until it is altered by the sovereign authority o( the conquering or acquiring power? That is the great principle which you can scarcely urn over a pad and comprehensive than that which in- vests a legislative b >dy with exclusive power, in all cases whatsoever, of legislation over a given district of territory or country ? Let me ask, sir, is there any power to abolish slavery in this District? Let me suppose, in addition to what I suggested the other day, that slavery had been abolished in Maryland and Virginia — let me add to it the supposition that it was abo- lished in all the States in the Union ; is there auy power then to abolish slavery within the District of Columbia, or is slavery planted here to all eternity, without the possibility of the exercise of any legislative power for its abolition? It cannot be invested in Maryland, be- cause the power with which Congress is invested is exclusive. Maryland, therefore, is exr eluded, and so all the other States of the Union are excluded. It is here, or it is nowhere. This was the view which I look in 1838, and I think there is nothing in the resolution which I nflered on that occasion incompatible with the view which I now present, and which the resolution contains. While 1 admitted the power to exist in Congress, and exclusively in Congress, to legislate in all cases whatsoever, and consequently in the case of the abolition of slavery in this District, if it is deemed proper to do so, I admitted on that occasion, as I con- tend now, that it is a power which Congress cannot, iu conscience and good faith, exercise- while the institution of slavery continues wi hiu the>9tate of Maryland. The case, sir, is a good deal altered now from what it was twelve years ago, when the resolution to which I allude was adopted by the Senate. Upon that occasion Virginia and Maryland both were concerned in the exercise of the power ; but, by the retrocession of that portion of the District which lies south of the Potomae, Virginia became no more interested in the question of the abolition of slavery within the resi- due of the Distiict than any other slaveholding State iu the Union is interested in its abolition. The question now is confined to Maryland. I said on that occasion that, although the grant of power is complete, and comprehends the right to abolish slavery w 7 ithin the District, yet it was a thing which never could have entered into the conception of Maryland or Virginia that slavery would be abolished here while slavery continued to exist in either of those two ceding States. I say, moreover, what the grant of power itself indicates, that, although exclusive, legislation in all cases whatsoever over the District was vested in Congress within the ten miles square, it was to make it the seat of Government of the United Sta'os. That was the great, prominent, substantial object of the grant, and that, iu exercising all the powers with which we are invested, complete and full as they may be, yet the great purpose — that of the cessiou having been made iu order to create a suitabie seat of Government — ought to be the leading and coutrolling idea with Congress in the exercise of this power. And it is not necess sry, in order to render it a proper and suitable seat of Government for the United States, that slavery should be abolished within the limits of the ten miles square. And inasmuch as at the time of the cession — when, in a spirit of generosity, immediately after the formation of this constitution — when all was peace, aud harmony, and concord — when brotherly affection and fraternal feeling prevailed throughout this whole Union — when Mary- land and Virginia, in a moment of generous impulse, and with feelings of high regard toward the members of this Union, chose to make this grant, neither party could have suspected that, at some distant future period, upon the agitation of this unfortunate subject, their generou-« grant without equivalent was to be turned against them, and that the sword was to be uplifted as it were, iu their Itosoms, to strike at their own hearts ; thus this implied faith, this honor- able obligation, this necessity and propriety of keeping in constant view the great object of cession. Those were considerations which in 1833 governed me, as they now influence me, in submitting the reasons which I have submitted to your consideration. Now, as then, I do not think Congress ought ever, as an honorable body, acting bona, fide in good faith, and according to the nature and purposes and objects of the cession at the time it was made — and, looking at the condition of the ceding States at that time, Congress canuot, without the forfeiture of all those obligations of honor which men of honor an i nations of honor respect as much as if found literally in so many words in the bond itself — Congress cannot interfere with the institution of slavery iu this District without the violation of all these obligations, not in my opinion less sacred and less binding than if inserted in the con- stitutional instrument itself. Well, sir, what does the resolution propose? The resolution neither affirms nor disaffirms the constitutionality of the exercise of the power of abolition in this District. It is silent npon the subject. It says it was inexpedient to do it but upon certain conditions. And what 18 are these considerations? Why, first, that the State of Mary'and shall give its consent ; in other words, that the State of Maryland ? hull release the United States from the obligation of the implied faith which I contend is connected with the act of cession by Mar, land to the United States. Well, sir, if Maryland, the only State now rhat Ct ded any portion of the territory which remains to us, gives us her full consent; in other words, if she releases Con- gress from all obligations growing out of the cession, with regard to slavery, I consider it is removing one of the obstacles to the exercise of the power, if it were deemed expedient to exercise the power. But it is removing only one of ihem. There are two other conditions which are inserted in this resolution. The firs.' 3 the consent of the people of the District. Mr. President, the condition of the people of tnis District is anomalous. It is a condition iu violation of the great principles which lie at the bottom of our own free institutions, and all free institutions, because it is the case of a people who are acted upon by legislative authority, and tii.xed by legislative authority, without having any voice or representation in the taxing or legislative body. The Government of the United States, in respect to the people of this District, is a tyranny, an absolute Government — uot exercised hitherto, I admit, and I hope it never will be exercised, tyrannically or arbitrarily ; but it is in the nature of all arbitrary power, because, if I were to give a definition of arbitrary power, I would say that it is that pow<*r which is exercised by au authority over our people who have no voice, no representa- tion in the assembly whose edicts or laws go forth to act upon the unrepresented people to whom I have referred. Well, sir, that being their condition, and this question of the abolition of slavery affecting them in all the relations which we can imagine-— of prosperity, society, comfort, peace, and happiness — I have required as another condition, upon which alone this power should be exercised, the consent of the people of the District,. But, sir, I have not stopped there. This resolution requires stilJ- another and a third condition, and that is, that slavery shall not be abolished within the District of Columbia, although Maryland consents, although the people of the District themselves consent, without the third condition of making compensation to the owners of the slaves within the District. Sir, it is immaterial to me upon what basis this obligation to compensate for the slaves who may be liberated by the authority of Congress is placed. There is a clause in the constitution of the United States, of the amendments to the constitution, which declares that no private property shall be taken for public use, without just compensation being made to the owner of the property. Well, I think, in a just and liberal interpretation of that clause, we are restrained from taking the property of the people of the District, in slaves, on considerations of any public policy, or for any conceivable or imaginable use of the public, without a full and fair com- pensation to the people of this District. But, without the obligation of any constitutional restriction, such as is contained in the amendment to which I refer — without that, upon the principles of eternal justice itself, we ought not to deprive those who have property in slaves, in this District, of their property, without compensating them for their full value. Why, sir, no one of the European poweis, Great Britain, France, or any other of the powers which undertook to abolish slavery in their respective colonies, has ever ventured to do it without making compensation. They were under no obligation atisir.g out of any written or other constitution to do it, but under that obligation to which all men ought to bow with homage — that obligation of eternal justice, which declares that no 'man ou-ht to be deprived of his property without a full and just compensation for its value. I know it has been argued that the clause of the constitution which requires compensation for property taken by the public, for its use, would not apply to the case of the abolition of slavery in the District, because the property is not taken for the use'of the public. Literally, perhaps, it would not be taken for the use of the public; but it would be taken in conside- ration of a policy and purpose adopted by the public, as one which it was deemed expedient to carry into full effect and operation ; and, by a liberal interpretation of the clause, it ought to be so far regarded as taken for the use of the public, at the instance of the public, as to demand compensation to the extent of the value of the property. If that is not a restriction as to the power of Congress over tho subject of slavery in the District, then the power of Congress stands unrestricted, and that would not be a better con- dition for the slaveholder in the District than to assume the restriction contained in the amendment. I say it would be unrestricted by constitutional operation or injunction. The great restrictions resulting from the obligations of justice would remain, and they are suffi- cient to exact from Congress the duty of ascertaining, prior to ths abolition of slavery, the value of the property in slaves in the District, and of making full, fair and just compensation for that property. Well, Mr. President, I said yesterday there was not a resolution, except the first, (which contained no concession by either party,) that did not either contain some mutual concussion 19 by the two parties, or did not contain concessions altogether from the North to the South. Now with respect to the resolution under consideration. The North has contended that the power exists under the constitution to abolish slavery. The South, I am aware, has opposed it, and most, at least a great portion of the Smith, have contended for tlie opposite construction. What does the resolution do? It asks of both parties to forbear urging their respective opinions, the' one to the exclusion of the other, but it concedes to the South al that the South, it appears to me, upo i this subject, ought in reason to demand, in so far as it requires such conditions as amount to an absolute security for property in slaves in the District ; such conditions as will probably make the existence of slavery within the District coeval and coextensive with its existence in any of the States out of and beyond the District. But, sir, the second clause of this resolution provides " that it is expedient to prohibit within the D.striet the trade in slaves bought into it from States or places beyond the limits of tho District, either to be sold therein as merchandise or to be transported to other markets." Well, Mr. President, if the concession be made that Congress has the power of legislation, and exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, how can it be doubted that Congress has authority to prohibit what is called the slave trade in the District of Columbii? Sir, my interpretation of the constitution is this; that, with regard to all parts of it which operate upon the States, Congress can exercise no power which is not granted, or which is not a necessary implication from a granted power. That is the rule for the action of Congress in relation to its legislation upon the States, but in relation to its legislation upon this District, tho reverse. I take it to be the true rule that Congress has all power over the District which is not prohibited by some part of the Constitution of the United States; in other words, that Congress has a power within the District equivalent to and co-extensive with, the power which any State itself possesses with n its own limits. Well, sir, does any one doubt tho power and the right of any slaveholding State in this Union to forbid the introduction, as merchandise, of slaves within their limits? Why, sir, almost every slaveholding State in the Union has exercised its power to prohibit the introduction of slavery as merchandise. It was in the constitution of my own State ; and, notwithstanding all the exc temeut and agitation upon the subject of slavery which occurred during the past year in the State of Kentucky, the same principle is incorporated in tho new constitution. It is in the constitu- tion, I know, of Mississippi. That State prohib ts the introduction of slaves within its limits as merchandise. I believe it to be in tho constitution or in the laws of Maryland — in the laws of Virginia — in the laws of most of the slaveholding States. It is true that the p -licy of the different slaveholding States upon this subject has somewhat vacillated — they some- times adopted it and sometimes excluded it — but there has been no diversity of opinion, no departure from the great principle, that every one of them has the power and authority to prohibit the introduction of slaves within their respective limits, if they choose to exercise it. Well, then, sir, I really do not think that this resolution, which proposes to abolish that trade, ought to be considered as a concession by either class of the States to the other class. I think it should be regarded as a common object, acceptable to both, and conformable to the wishes and feelings of both ; and yet, sir, in these times of fearful and alarming excite- ment — in these times when every night that I go to sleep and awake up in the morning, it is with the apprehension of some new and fearful and dreadful tidings upon this' agitating subject — I have seen in the act of a neighboring State, among the various contingencies wheih are enumerated, upon the happening of any one of which delegates are to be sent to the famous convention which is to Assemble at Nashville in June next, that among other substantive grounds for the appointment of delegates to that convention — of delegates from the State to which I refer — one is, that if Congress abolish the slave trade in the District of Columbii, that shall be cause for a convention — in other words, it is cause for considering whether this Union ought to be dissolved or not. Is it possible to portray a greater extent of extravagance to which men may be carried by the indulgence of their passions? Sir, the power exists; the duty, in my opinion, exists; and there has been no time — as 1 may say, in language coincident with that used by the honorable Senator from Alabama — there has been no time in my public life when I was not willing to concur in the abolition of the slave trade in this. District. I was willing to do it when Virginia's portion of the Dis- trict was retroceded, that lying South of the Potomac. There is still less ground for objection to doing it now, when the District is limited to the portion this side of the Potomac, and when the motive or reason for concentrating slaves here in a depot, for the purpose of trans- portation to distant foreign markets, is lessened with the diminution of the District, by tha retrocession of that portion to Virginia. Why should slave-traders who buy their slaves in Maryland or Virginia, come here wi'h their slaves in order to transport them to New Orleans or other Southern markets? Way not transpoit them from the States in which they are purchased? Why are the feelings of citizens here outraged by the scenes exhibited, and the corteges which pass along our ave- 20 nues, of manacled human beings, not collected at all in oar own neighborhood, but broug?j5 from distant parts of neighboring States? Why should they be outraged? And who ia there, that Iims a heart, that does not contemplate a spectacle of that kind with horror and indignation? Why should they be outraged by a scene so inexcusable and detestable as this? Sir, it is no concession, I repeat, from one class of States or from the other. It is an ob- ject in which both of them, it seems to me, should heartily unite, and which the one side as much as the other should rejoice in adopting, inasmuch as it lessens one of the causes of in- quietude and dissatisfactio.i which are. connected with this District. Abolish the slave-trade in this district ; re-assert the doctrine of the resolution of 1838, that by an implied assent on the part of Congress slavery ought not to be abolished in the District of Columbia, while it remains in the State of Maryland ; re-assert the principle of that resolution, and adopt tho ether healing measures — or other similar or more healing measures — for I am not attached to any thing that is the production of my own hand, if any thing better should be offered by any body else — adopt the other healing measures which are proposed, and which are required by the distracted condition of the country, and I venture to say that, as we have had peace and quiet for the last twenty years, since the termination of the Missouri controversy, we shall have, in all human probability, peace for a longer period to come upon this unhappy subject of slavery. The next resolution is : " That more effectual provision onght to be made by law, according to the requirement of the Constitution, for the restitution and delivery of persons bound to service or labor in any State, who may escape into any other State or Territory in the Union." Now, Mr. President, upon that subject I go with him who goes farthest in the interpreta- tion of that clause in the Constitution. In my humble opinion, sir, it is a requirement by the Constitution of the United States which is not limited iu its operation to the Congress of the Uuited States, but extends to every State iu the Union and to the officers of every State in the Union ; and I go one stop farther.; it extends to every man in the Union, and devolves upon tin m a!! an obligation to assist in the recovery of a fugitive from labor who takes refuge in or escapes into one of the free States. And, sir, I think I can maintain all this by a fair interpretation of the Constitution. It provides — " That no person held to service or labor in oue State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from ser- vice or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." It will be observed, Mr. President, that this clause iu the Constitution is not among the enumerated powers granted to Congress, for, if that had_been the case, it might have been urged that Congress alone could legislate to carry it into effect ; but it is one of the general powers, or one of the general rights secured by this Consiitutional instrument, and it addresses itself to all who are bound by the Constitutiou of the United States. Now, sir, the officers of the General Government are bound to take au oath to support the Constitution of the United States. All State officers are required by the Consiitution to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States ; and all men who love their country and are obedient to its laws, are bound to assist in the execution of those Jaws, whether they are fundamental or derivative. I do not say that a private individual is bound to make the tour of his State in order to assist an owner of a slave to recover his property ; but I do say, if he is present when the owner of a slave is about to assert his rights and endeavor to obtain possession of his property, evtry man pre- sent, whether he be an officer of the General Government or the State Government, or a private individual, is bound to assist, if men are bound at all to assist in the exocution of tho laws of their country. Now what is this provision? It is that such fugitives shall be delivered upon claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. As has been already remarked in the course of the debate upon the bill upon this subject which is now pending, the Iafiguage used in regard to fugitives from criminal offences and fugitives from labor is precisely the same. The fugitive from justice is to be delivered up, and to be removed to tho State having jurisdiction ; the fugitive from labor is to be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service is due. Well, has it ever been contended on the part of any State that she is not bound to surrender a fugitive from justice, upon demand from the State from which he fled ? I believe not. There have been some exceptions to the performance of this duty, but they have not denied the general right ; and if they have refused in any instance to give up the person demanded, it has been upon some technical or legal ground, not at all questioning the general right to have the fugitive surrendered, or the obligation to deliver him up as intended by the Constitution. 21 1 think, then, Mr. President, that with regard to the true interpretation of this provision of flie Constitution there can be no doubt. It imposes an obligation upon all the States, free or siaveholding ; it imposes an obligation upon all officers of the Government, State, or Federal ; and, I will add, upon all the people of the United States, under particular circumstances, to assist in the surrender and recovery of a fugitive slave from his m ister. There has been some confusion, and, I think, some misconception, on this subject, in con- sequence of a recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. I think that de- cision has been entirely misapprehended. There is a vast difference between imposing impedi- ments and affording facilities for the recovery of fugitive slaves. The Supreme Court of the United States has only decided that all laws of impediment are unconstitutional. I know there aie some general expressions in the opinion to which I have referred — the case, of Ma- ryland against Pennsylvania — that seem to import otherwise ; but I think, Whet! you come attentively to read the \vh do opinion, and the opinion pronounced by all the judges, espe- cially if you take the trouble of doing what I have done, to converse with them as o what their real meaning was, you will find that the whole extent of the. authority which they in- intended to e>tablish was that any laws of impediment enacted by the States were iaws that were forbidden by the provision of tho Constitution to which I refer ; that the General Government had no right, by an act of the Congress of the United States, to impose obligations upon Slate officers not imposed by the authority of their own Constitution and laws. It is impossible the decision could have been otherwise. It Would have been perfectly extrajudicial. The Court had no right to decide the question whether the laws of facility were or were not unconstitutional. The only question before the Court was the law of impediment passed by the 'Legislature of Pennsylvania] and if they had gone beyond the case before them, and undertaken to de- cide upon a ease not hefore them, a principle which was not. fairly comprehended within the case before them, it would be what the lawyers term an obiler dictum, and is nut binding; either on that Court itself or any other tribunal. I say it was not possible that, with the case before ihe Court of a law for giving facility to the holder of the slave to recover his property again, it was utterly impossible that auy tribunal should pronounce a decision that such aid and assistance, rendered by the authority of the State, Under this previ ion of the Constitution of the Uuiled St ties, is unconstitutional and void. The Court has not. -said se, or if they have said so, they have transcended their authority and gone beyond the case which was before them. Laws passed by States, in order to assist the General Government, so far from beitifj laws repugnant to the Constitution, would every where be regarded as laws carrying out, enforcing, and fulfilling the Constitutional duties which are created by that in- strument. Why, sir, as well might it be contended that if Congress were to declare war — and no ona will doubt that the power to declare war is vested exclusively in Congress ; no State has the right to do it — no one will contend seriously, I apprehend, that after the declaration of war it would be unconstitutional on the part of any of the States to assist in the vigorous and effective prosecution of that war ; and yet it would be just as unconstitutional to lend flieir aid to the successful and glorious termination of the war in which we might be embarked, as it would be to assist in the performance of a high duty which addresses itself to all the States and all the people of ail the States. Mr. P. evident, I do think that that whole class of Legislation, beginning in the Northern States and extending to some of tho Western States, hy which obstructions and impedimenta have been thrown in the way of the recovery of fugitive slaves, is unconstitutional, and has originated in a spirit which I trust will correct itself when th.se States come calmly to consi- der the nature and extent of their federal obligations. Of all the States in this 'Union, unless it lie Virginia, the State of which I am a resident suffers most by the escape of their slave* tu (adjoining S ates. I have very little doubt, indeed, that the exte.it of loss to the State of Kentucky, in conse- quence of the escipe of her slaves is greater, at least, in proportion to the total number of slaves which are held within that commonwealth, even than in Virginia. I know full well, and so does the honorable Senator from Ohio know, that it is at the ut- most hazard, and insecurity to life itself, that a Kentuckiah can cross the river and go into the interior to take back iiis fugitive slave to the place from whence he tied. Recent- ly an example occurred even in the city of Cincinnati, in respect to one of our most respect- able citizens. Not having visited Ohio at all, but Covington, on the opposite side -of the river, a little slave of his escaped over to Cincinnati. He pursued it ; he found it in the house in which it was concealed ; he took it out, and it was rescued by the violence and force of a negro mob from his possession — the police of tho city standing by, and either unwilling or unable to afford the assistance which was requisite to enable him to recoVer his property. Upon this subject I do think that we have ju=t and serious cause of complaint against tho 22 free States. I think they fail in fulfilling a great obligation, and the failure is precisely upom one of these subjects which in its nature is the most irritating a.,d inflaming to those who live in the slave States. Now, sir, 1 think it is a mark of no good neighborhood, of no kindness, of no courtesy, that a man living in a slave State cannot now, with any sort of safety, navel in he free States with his servants, although he has no purpose whatever of stopping there longer than a short time. And on this whole subject, sir, how has the legislation of the free States al- tered for the worse within the course of the last twenty or thirty years? Why, sir, most of th< se Stales, until within a period of the last tweuty or thirty years, had laws for the benefit of sojourners, as they were called, passing through or ab'diog for the moment in the free States, with their servants. Sir, I recollect a case that occurred during the war. My fiie d, Mr. Cheeves, of South Carolina, instead of going home in the vacation, went to Philadel- phia, taking his family servants with him. Some of the abolitioni ts of that city took out a habeas corpus, seized ihe slaves, and the question was brought before the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania, where it was argued for days. It was necessary, during the progress of the arguments, to refer to a great vaiicty of statutes- passed from time to time by the Legislature of Pennsylvania, on behalf of the sojourner, guarantying and securing to him the possession of his property during his tempo- rary passage or abode within the limits of that commonwealth. Finally, the court gave their opinion seriatim — each judge his separate opinion, until it came to Judge Bred enridge to deliver his, who was the youngest judge, I think, on the bench. During the progress of the delivery of their opinions they had frequently occasion to refer to the sets passed for the benefit of sojourners ; arid each of the judges who preceded Mr. Breckenridge always pro- nounced the word " sudgeners." When i> came to Judge Breckenridge to deliver his opinion, he said, " I agree in all that my learned brethren have pronounced upon this occasion, ex- cept in their pronunciation of the word ' sojourner.' They pronounced it ' sudgener ;' but I call it ' sojourner.' " [Laughte:.] Well, now, sir, all these laws in behalf of these sojourners through the free States are swept away, except I believe in the State of Rhode Island. Mr. Dayton. And New Jersey Mr. Clay. Aye, and in New Jersey. I am happy to hear it ; but in most of the large States, in most, if not all, of the New England States, these laws have been abolished, show- the progressive tendency of bad neighborhood and unkind action on the part of the free States toward the slaveholding States. Mr. President, I do not mean to contest the ground — I am not going to argue the question, whether, if a man carries his slave voluntarily into the free States and he is not a fugitive, whether that slave, by the voluntary action of the master, does or does not become instantly entitled to his freedom. I am not going to argue that question. I know what the decision has been at the North, but I mean to say it is unkind, it is unneighborly, it is not in the spirit of fraternal connexion which exists between the members of this confederacy, to exe- cute a strict legal principle in the way suggested, even supposing it to be right so to do. But where there is no puipose of permanent abode, no intention of settling finally and conclusively, and plautii g his slaves within the commonwealth, it is but right, and a proof of good neigh- borhood and kind and friendly feeling, to allow the owner of the slave to pas3 with his pro- perty unmolested through your State. Allow me to say upon the subject, though it is perhaps going farther into detail than is necessary, that of all the exercise of power of those wl.o atlempt to seduce fiom their owners their slaves, there is no instance in which it is exercised so injuriously to the objects of their charity and benevolence as in the case of the seduction of family slaves from the service of their owner. The slaves in a family are treated with all the kindness that the children of the family receive. Everything which they want for their comfort is given them with the most liberal indulgence ; and, sir, I have known more instances than one where, by this practice of the seduction of family servants from their owners, they have been rendered wretched and unhappy in the free States; and in my own family, a slave who had been seduced away, addressed her mistress and begged and implored of her the means of getting back from the state, of freedom to which she had been seduced, to the state of slavery in which she was so much more happy ; and in the case to which 1 have referred the means were afforded her, and she returned to the State of Kentucky to her mistress. Then, Mr. President, I think that the existing laws upon the subject, lor the recovery of fugitive slaves, and the restoration and delivering of them up to their owners, being found inadequate and ineffective, it is incumbent on Congress — and 1 hope hereafter, in a better state of feeling, when moro harmony and good -will prevail amoi g the members of this con- federacy, it will be regarded by the. free States themselves as a pail of their duty also — to assist in allaying this irritating unc^distui biug subject to the peace of our Union ; but, at all events, whether they do it or not, it is our duty to do it. It is our duty to make the law 23 more effective, and I shall go with the Senator from the South who goes farthest in making penal laws and imposing the heaviest sanctions for the recovery of fugitive slaves, and the restoration of them to their owners. Mr. President, upon t his part of the subject, however, allow me 10 make an observation or two. I do not think the Slates, as Stales, ought to be responsible for all the misconduct of particular individuals within those StaUs. I think that the States are only to be held re- sponsible when they act in their sovereign capacity. If there are a few persons, indiscreet, mad, if you choose — fanatics, if you choose so to call them — who are for dissolving this Union, as we know there are some at the North, and for dissolving it in consequence of the connexion which exists between the fiee and slaveholding Slaves, I do not think that any State in which such madmen as they are to be found, ought to be held responsible for the doctrines they propagate, unless the State itself adopts those doctrines. Sir, there have het-n, perhaps, mutual causes of complaint ; and I know, at least I have heard, that Massachusetts, for some of her unfriendly laws on the subject of the recovery of fugitive slaves, urges as the motive for the passag • of those laws the treatment which a cer- tain minister of hers experienced in Charleston, some years ago. Mr. Hoar, I think, is the name of the individual who was s-nt to South Carolina to take care of the free negroes of Massachusetts that might pass to Charleston in the vessels of Massachusetts. I think it was a mission that it was hardly worthy of Massachusetts to create. I think she might have omitted to send Mr. Hoar upon any s"ch mission ; but she thought it right to send him. and he went there for the purpose of asserting, as he said, the rights of those free people of color before the courts of justice, and of testing the validity of certain laws in South Caro- lina with regard to the prohibition of i'ree negroes from coming into her ports. I believe that was the object, that was the purpose of his mission. He went there to create no disturb- ance, as I understand, except so far as asserting those rights and privileges, in the sense in which Massachusetts held them, might create disturbance He was virtually driven out of Charleston, as I believe he or some other emissary of the same kind was driven out of New Orleans. I do not mean to say whether it was right or wrong to expel him. What I mean to say is, that Massachusetts, or some of her citizens, has said, that, after finding this treat- ment towards those whom she chooses to consider citizens, on the part of South Carolina, she determined on that course of legislation by which she has withdrawn all aid and assistance for the recovery of fugitives, and interposes obstacles ; and then she pleads the treatment of Mr. Hoar as an apology. I think that furnished her with no sufficient apology. If South Carolina treated her ill, it is no reason why she should ill teat Kentucky and Virginia, and other slaveholding States that had done her no wrong. But she thought so. I mention both cases — the case of the expulsion of Mr. Hoar from Charleston, and the passage of the laws of Massachusetts — not by way of approbation of either, but to show that there have been, unhappily, mutual causes of agitation, furnished by one class of S ates as well as by the other ; though, I admit, not in the same degree by the slave States as by the free States. And I admit, also, that the free States have much less cause for anxiety and solicitude on this subject of slavery than the slave states, and that far more extensive ex- cuses, if not justification, ought to be extended to the slave than the free States, on account of the difference of the condition of the respective parties. Mr. President, passing from that resolution, I will add only a single observation, that when the bill comes up to be finally acted on, I will vote most cordially and heartily for it. Mr. Davis, of Massachusetts. Will the honorable Senator permit me to interrupt him for a moment? I want to say one word in behalf of the state of Massachusetts, with his per- mission. Mr. Cur. Certainly, certainly. Mr. Davis. I have never, although most likely he may have, heard the apology stated by the honorable Senator for passing the law to which he has referred ; but on the contrary I have always understood that the law which Massachusetts had, lor restoring fugitive slaves, was repealed because the courts below, as they understood it, had pronounced their law un- constitutional. That is the ground which they took ; whether they were wise in the legis- lation they adopted I. shall not. undertake to say. But I wish to say one word in regard to the mission, as it is termed by the honorable. Senator from Kentucky, to South Carolina. If I call the facts to my recollection correctly, they are these. We are the owners of much shipping ; we employ many sailors, and among them we employ free colored men, men whom we in Massachusetts acknowledge to be citizens of the United States and citi- zens of the commonwealth, and entitled o the rights of citizens. These citizens were taken from our vessels when they arrived in South Carolina, and were held in custody till the ves- sels sailed again. This our citizens complained of, whether justly or unjustly, that it was an encroachment, in the first place, upon the rights of citizens, and, in the next place, that it was a great inconvenience to men engaged in commerce. If I remember righily, ai,d I think I do, the state of Massachusetts authorized its Governor to propose, at the expense of 24 the Stale, to some suitable and proper person, who was a citizen of South Carolina, to test the right to hold her c tizens in custody in this way, in the conns of the State, or in the courts of the United States. If 1 remember rightly, that was declined by one or more citizens of South Carolina. Then the mission, to which the honorable Senator refers, was instituted, and the termination of it I believe he has correctly stated. I wish it to appear that Massachusetts had no aggressive purpose whatever, but simply Wished that the judiciary should decide the question existing between them. She wanted nothing more, asked nothing more. Mr. Clay. Mr. President, I hear with much pleasure this explanation. I have been in- formed, however, by an eminent citizen of Massachusetts, whose name it is unnecessary to mention— he is not a member of this h dy — that the motive fir the repeal of these laws, or lor the passage of these laws, at lea tone of the motives, was the treatment of Mr. Hoar in Charleston. However, I am glad to hear th it it proceeded from another cause, and that is what I conceive to be a misconception of what the Hue opinion of the judges of the Supreme Court was. When the true exposition of that opinion comes to be known in Massachusetts, I trust that the Legislature of that State will restore the laws facilitating the recovery of fugitive slaves, which she repealed in consequence of that misconception. Mr. President, I have a great deal yet to say, and I shall, therefore, pass from the con- s delation of this seventh resolution with the observation, which ] believe 1 have partly made before, that the most stringent provision upon this subject which can be devised will meet with my hearty concurrence and co-operation, in the passage of the bill which is under the consideration of the Senate. The last resolution declares — " That Congress has no power to prohibit or obstruct the trade in slaves between the Blaveholding States ; but that the admission or exclusion of slaves brought from one into another of them depends exclusively upon their own particular laws." Ibis is a concesssion, not, 1 admit, of any real constitutional provision, but a concession from the North to the South of what is understood, I believe, by a grr-at number at the North, to be a constitutional provision. If the resolution should be adopted, take away the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on this subject, and there is a great deal, 1 know, that might be said on both sides, as to the tight of Congress to regulate the trade between the States, and, consequently, the trade in slaves between the States; but I think the decision of the Supreme Court has been founded upon correct principles, and 1 trust it will forever put an end to the question whether Congress has or has not the power to regu- late the intercourse and trade in slaves between the different States. Such, Mr. President, is the series of resolutions which in an earnest and anxious desire to present the olive branch to both parts of this distracted, and at the present moment unhappy country, I have thought it my duty to offer. Of all men upon earth I am the least attached to any productions of my own mind. No man upon earth is more ready than I am to sur- render any thing which I have proposed, and to accept in lieu of it any thing thai is brtter; but I put it to the candor of honorable Senators on the. other side and upon all sides of the Hoi se, whether their duty will be perfornu d by simply limi;iug themselves to objections to any one or to all of the series of resolutons that I have offered. If my plan of peace, and ac- commodation, and harmony, is not right, present us your plan. Let us see the counter project. Let. ns see how all the qufBtions that have arisen out of this unhappy subject of slavery can be better settled, mire fairly and justly settled to all quarters of the Union, than on the plan proposed in the resolutions which I have offered. Present me such a scheme, and I will hail it wiih pleasure, and will accept it without the slightest feeling of regret th t my own was abandoned. Sir, while I was engaged in anxious consideration upon this subject, the idea of the Missouri compromise, as it has been termed, came under my review, was considered by me, and finally rejected as in my judgment less worthy of the common acceptance of both parts of this Union than the project which I have off-red for your consideration. Before I enter into a particular examination, however, of that Missouri compromise, I beg to be allowed to correct a great error which is prevailing, not merely in this Senate but throughout, the whole country, in respect to my agency in the Missouri compromise, or rather in respect to the line of 36 deg. 30 iriin., which was established in 182!) by an act of Congress. I do not know whether any thing has excited more surprise in my mind, as to the rapidity with which important historical transactions are obliterated and pass from the mind, than when I understood everywhere that 1 had been the author of the line of 30 deg. 30 min., which was established upon the occasion of the admission of Missouri into the Union. It would take too much time to go over the whole of that important er.i in the public affairs of the country. I shall not do it, although I have got ample materials before me, derived from a careful examination of the jourhals of both houses. I will not occupy your time by going in detail through the whole transaction, but I will content m '.self with saying that so far from my having presented as a proposition this line of 36 deg. 30 mill., upon the occasion of the consideration whether Missouii should be admitted into the Union 25 or not, it did not originate in the house of which I was a member. It originated in this body, as those who will cast their recollection back, and I am suro the honorable Senator from Missouri, (.Mr. Benton,) more correctly than any body else, must bring to his recollection the fact that at the Congress when the proposition was first made to admit Missouri — or rath r to allow her to hold a convention and frame a constitution and decide whether she should or should not be admitted into the Union — the bill failed by a disagreement between the two houses, the House insisting on and the Senate dissenting from the provisions contained in the ordinance of 1787. The House insisting on the. interdiction of slavery, and the Senate rejecting the proposition of the interdiction of slavery, the bill fell through ; it did not pass at that session of Congress. At the next session it was renewed, and at the time of its renewal Maine was knocking at our door to be admitted into the Union. In the House there was a majority for ihe restriction as to slavery in Missouri ; in the Se- nate there was a majority opposed to all restriction. In the Senate; therefore, in order to carry through the Missouri bill, or the provision for her admission— or rather authorizing her to determine the question of her admission — that bill was coupled with the bill for the ad- mission of Maine. They were connected together, and the Senate said to the House, " You want a bill for the admission of Maine passed, but you shall not have it, unless you take along with it a bill for the admission of Missouri also." There was a majority, a very large one, in the Senate, for coupling both together. Well, sir, the bill went through all the usual stages of disagreement of committees of con- ferenqe, and there were two committees of conference on the occasion before the matter was finally settled. And it was finally settled to disconnect the two bills — to admit Maine separ rately, without any connection with Missouri, and to insert in the Missouri bill a clause pro- posed in the Senate of the United States by Mr. Thomas, Senator from Illinois, restricting slavery north of the line 36 deg. 30 min., and leaving it open south of that line, either to admit it or not to admit it. Well, sir, the bill finally pased. The committees of conference of the two houses ret ommended the detachment of the two cases, and the passage of the Missouri bill with the clause 3G deg. 30 min. in it; and so it passed, so it went to Missouri, so it for a moment quieted the country, by means of the introduction of the clause 36 deg. 30 min. You will find, I repeat, sir, if you will take the trouble to look at the jour- nals, that on as many as three or four different occasions Mr. Thomas in every instance presented the proposition of 36 deg. 30 min. It was finally agreed to; and I take occasion to say that among those who voted for the 36 deg. 30 min. were the majority of the South- ern members — my friend from Alabama, (Mr. King,) in the Senate, Mr. Pinckney, from Maryland, and indeed the majority of the Southern Senators voted in favor of the line 36 deg. 30 min.; and the majority of the Southern members in tie other house, at the head of whom was Mr. Lowndes himself, voted also tor that line. I have no doubt I did also; but, as I was Speaker of the House at the time, and the journal does not show how the Speaker votes except in the case of a tie, I was not able to ascertain, by a resort to the re- cords, how 1 did voie ; but I have very little doubt that I voted, in common wiih my other Southern friends, for the adoption, in a spirit of compromise, it is true, of the line 36 deg. 30 min. Wed, sir, so the matter ended in 1820. During that year Missouri held her convention, adopted her constitution, sent her delegates to Congress, seeking to be admitted into the Union ; but she had inserted a clause in her constitution containing a prohibition of free people of color from that State. She came herewith her constitution containing that prohibi- tion, and immediately the Northern members took exception to it. The flame which had been repressed during the previous session now bur4 forth with double violence throughout the whole Union. Legislative bodies all got in motion to keep out Missouri, in consequence of her interdiction of free people of color from within her limits. 1 did not arrive at Congress that session till January, and w en I got here I found both bodies completely paralyzed in consequence of the struggle to exclude Missouri from the Union on account of that prohibition. Well, sir, I made the first effoit in the House to settle it. I asked for a committee of thir- teen, and a committee of thirteen was granted to me, representing all the old Slates of the Union. The committee met. I presented to them a resolution, which was adopted by the committee and reported to the House — not Unlike the one to which I will presently call the attention of i he Senate — and we should have carried it in the Hou-e but for the voles of Mr. Randolph, of Virginia, Mr. Edwards, of North Carolina, and Mr. turtou, of North Carolina — two of the three, 1 believe, no longer living. These three Southern votes were all cast against the compromise, which was prepared by the committee, or rather by myself, as chair- man of the committee of thirteen, and defeated it. Well, sir, in that condition the thing remained for several days. The greatest^nxiety per- vaded ilie country — the public mind was unsettled — men were unhappy — there was a large majority of the Ilousothen, as I hope ai.d trust there is now a large majoii y in Congress, in favor of an equitable accommodation or settlement of the question ; and the resolution would 26 have been adopted, I believe, but when it came to the vote of yeas and nays, unfortunately then — mere unfortunately then, I hope, than now, if there should be occasion for it now there were few Curtiuses and Leonidases willing to risk themselves for the safety and securi- ty of their country. I endeavored to avail myself of that good feeling, as far as I could ; and, altera few days had elapsed, ^brought forwatd another proposition; a new one, perfectly unpracti>ed in this country, either before or since, as far as I know. I proposed a joint committee of the two houses ; that of the House to consist of twenty- three membeis, (the number of the Senate committee I do not recollect, - ) aud that this com- mittee should be appointed by ballot ; for at that time Mr. Taj lor, of New York, was in the chair, and Mr. Taylor was the very man who had first proposed the restriction upon Missouri. He proposed that she should only be admitted on the principle of the ordinance of 1787 ; I proposed therefore, that the committee be appointed by ballot. Well, sir, my motion was carried by a largo majority ; and members came to me from ail quarters of the House, and said, " Whom, Mr. Clay, do you want to have with you on the committee?" I made out my list of wenty- three members, and I venture to say that that h ppened on that occasion which will haidly ever happen again, eighteen of the twenty-three were elected on the first ballot, and the remaining five ou my list having the largest number of votes, but not the ma- jority, I moved to dispense with any farther balloting, and ihat these five should be added to the eighteen, thus completing the committee of twenty-three. One or two genii, men, Mr. Live,rmore, of New Hampshire, and one or two others, declined to serve ou the committee ; and, very much to my regret, and somewhat to my annoyance, the lamented Mr. Randolph and another person were placed iu tHeir situation — I forgot whether done by ballot or by the Speaker ; it is enough to say they were put on the committee. Well, sir, the Senate immediately agreed to the proposition, appointed its committee, and we met in this hall ou the Sabbath day, within two or three days of the close of the session, when the wi.ole nation was waiting with breathless anxiety for some final and healing mea- sure U| oil tlie distracting subject-which occupied our attention. We met hereon that day, and, accordingly, the moment we met, Mr. Randolph made a suggestion which I knew would b^ attended with the greatest embarrassment aud difficulty. He contended that over the two committees of the two houses the chairman of the House committee htd a right to preside, and he was about to insist at some length that the two committees should be blended together, and that I should preside over both. ] instantly interposed, and said that I did not think that was the correct mode, but that the chairman of the committee of each house should preside over his own committee, and that when the committee of one house matured and adopted a proposition, it should be submitted to the other committee, and if agreed to by them, it should then be reported to the two houses, and its adoption recommended- That course was agreed upon, and Mr. Holmes, I believe, of Maine, presided over the committee of the Senate, and I presided over the committee of the House. I did then, what 1 have protested I would not, do at this session, took too much the le d in the discussion. I brought forward the proposition which I will refer to presently ; aud T did more, I took the trouble to ascertain the views of each member of the committee — I polled the committee, if I may use the expression. I said, now, gentlemen, we do not want a proposition carried hereby a simple majority and reported to the House, there to be rejected. 1 am for some- thing priicical, something conclusive, something decisive upon this agitating question, and it should be carried by a good majority. How will you vote, Mr. A.? how will you vote, Mr. B. 7 how will you vote, Mr. C. .' and I polled them iu that way. Well sir, to my very great happiness, a sufficient number responded affirmatively, that they would vote for the proposi- tion, to enable me to know that, if they continued to vote that way in the two houses, of which I had not a particle of doubt iu ihe woild, the proposition would be carried in the two houses. Accomingly, it having been agreed upon by both committees, and reported tj their respeciive houses, it was finally adopted. This joint resolution for the admission of Missouri was passed in 1821. (I find I have been furnis ied with one which was proposed, but not adopted. The right one is contained in tho statutes at large ; I have seen it there ) Well, sir, the resolution was finally adopted. I can state, without reading it, what its provisions are. It declares that, if there be any provision in the Constitution of Missuuri, in- compatible with the Consi.itut.on of the United States, Missouri shall foibear to enforce the repugnant piovisions of her constitution, and thai* she siiall by some solemn aud authentic act declare that she will not enforce any provisions of her contitiition which are incompati- ble with the constitution of the United Slates ; and upon her passage of such a solemn and authentic ct, the President of the U.iited States — who was at that time Mr. Monroe — shall make proclamation of the fact ; and thereupon, and without any farther legislation of Congress, Missouri .-hull be admitted into the Union. Now, sir, I want to call your attention to this period of history, and to the transactions which took place during the progress of the discussion upon the resolution. 27 During the discussion which took place in the House at that time, from day to day, and from night to nighi— for the discussions frequently ran into the night — we who were for ad- mitting Missouri into the Union said lo our brethren from the North, " Why, gentlemen, if there he any provision in the Constitution of Missouri which is repugnant to the constitution of the United States, it is a nullity. The Constitution of the United Stales, by virtue of its own operation — its own self-operation — vacates it. Any tribunal on earth, before which the question may be brought, must pronounce the Constitution of the United States paramount, and must pronounce invalid the repugnant provis on> of tho constitution of Missouri." Well, sir, the argument was turned, and twisted, and u-ed in every possible variety of lorm. All was in vain. An inflexible majority stood out to the last against the admission of Missouri ; and yet the reso'ution — Mr Underwood. I have it here. Mr. Clay. If you will read it, I shall be obliged to you. Mr. Underw«.od read the resolution as follows: Resolution providing for the admission of the State of Missouri into the Union ou a certain condition. Resolved hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congi ess assembled, That Missouri shall be admitted into this Union on an equal fooling With the original States in all respects whatever, upon the lundamental condition that the fourth clause of the 26th secion of the third article of the Constitution, submitted on the part of said state to Congress, shall never be construed to authorise the passage of any law, a>id that no law shall be passed in conformity thereto, hy which any citizen of either ol' the States of this Union shall be excluded fr. m the enjoyment of any of the privates and immunities to whch such citizen is entitled under the Constitution of the United States: Provided, That the Legislature of the said state, hy a solemn public act, shall declare the assent of the said State to the said fundamental condition, and shall transmit to the President of the United States, mi or before the fourth Monday in November next, an authentic copy of the said act ; upon the receipt whereof the President, by proclamation, shall announce the fact; where- upon, and without any farther proceeding on the part of Congress, the admission of the said State into tl e Union shall be considered as con. plete. [Approved March 2, 1832 ] Mr. Clay. There is the reselntion, sir, and you see it is precisely what I have stated. After all this excitement throughout the country, reaching to such an alarming point that the Union itself was supposed to be in the most imminent peril and danger, the parties were sa- tisfied by the declaration of an incontestable principle of Constitutional law, that when the Constitution ofa Slate is violative in its provisions of the Constitution of iheUnited Sutes.the constitution of the United States is paramount, and the constitution of the State in that par. ticukr is a nullity and void. That was all. They wanted something as a justification, and this appeared, at'least, a justification of the course they took. There is a great deal of lan- guage there of a high-sounding character— that it shall be a fundamental act, a solemn act, an authentic act ; but. after all, when you come to strip it of its veibiage, it is nothing but the announcement of the principle that'the Constitution of the United States is paramount over the local Constitution of any one of the States of the Union. Mr. President, I may draw from that transaction in our history which we are now examin- ing, this moral ; that now, as then, if we will only suffer our reason to have its scope and sway, and to still and hush the passi n and exc tement that has been created by the occasion, the "difficulty will be more than half removed, in the settlement, upon just and amicable pri ciples, of any questions which unhapp ly divide us at this moment. But, sir, I w ish to contrast the plan of accommodation which is proposed by me with that which s offered by the Missouri compromise line being extended to the Pacific ocean, and to ask of gentlemen'from the South, and gentlemen from the North, too, which is most proper, which mo>t just, and to which there is the least cause of objection. Now, sir, w a iat was done hy the M ssouri line? (Slavery was positively interdicted North of that line. The question of the admission or exclusion of slavery South of that line was not settled. There Was no provision that slavery should be introduced or established South of that line. In point of Ret, it existed in all the tenitory South of the line of 36 deg- 30 mm., embracing Arkansas and Louisiana. It was not necessary then, "u is mie, to insert a clause admitting slavery at that time. But, sir, if there is a power to interdict, there is a power to ad,, it : and 1 put it to gentlemen from the South are they prepared to be satisfied with the line of 36 deom the South or the North, by all that they hold dear in this world — by all their love of liberty — by all their veneration for their ances- tors — by all their regard for posterity — by all their gratitude to Him who has bestowed on them such unnumbered and countless blessings — by all the duties which they owe to man- kind — and by all the duties which they owe to themselves, to pause, solemnly to pause at the edge of the precipice, before the fearful and dangerous leap is taken into the yawning abyss below, from which none who ever take it shall return in safety. Finally, Mr. President, and in conclusion, I implore, as the best blessing which Heaven can bestow upon me, upon earth, that if the direful event of the dissolution of this Union is to happen, I shall not survive to behold the sad -ind heart-rending spectacle. STRINGER & TOWNSEND'S EDITION, IN PERIODICAL FORM, OF COOPER'S NOVELS, At Twenty-Five Cents Per Volume. Stringer & Townsexd have made an arrangement with J. Femmore Coor-ER, Esq., to publish all of his Talks and Ko.ma.ncks, at the reduced price of Twenty- Five Cents per volume. The opportunity is thus prcscutcd to purchase this Popular Series of Tales at a price within the means of every person ; and a Reduction of Twenty Per Cent, will be made to persons purchasing tho complete set, EMBRAOING-- SEA LIONS, or the Lost Sealers. OAK OPEN I NGS, or. the Bee Hunter. 2 vols. .... JACK TIER, or the Florida Reef. 2 vols THE CRATER, or Vulcan's Peak. 2 vols REDSKINS, or Indian and Ingin. 2 vols SATANSTOE, or Littletage Manu- scripts. 2 vols. ..... CHAIN BEARER, a Tale of the Colony. 2 vols. AFLOAT AND ASHORE, or the Adventures of Miles Wallingford. 4 vols. . . . . . . 1 DEERSLAYER, or the First War Path. 2 vols. ..... HOMEWARD BOUND, or the Chase. 2 vols. ..... HOME AS FOUND, a Tale. 2 vols. HEADSMAN, a Novel. . " HEIDENMAUER, a Tale. LAST OF THE MOHICANS, a Tale of 1757. 2 vols. LIONEL LINCOLN, or the Leaguer of Boston. 2 vols. WATER WITCH, or the Skimmer of the Seas. 2 vol9. MERCEDES OF CASTILE. 2 vols MONIKINS. 2 vols NED MYERS, or a Life Before the Mast. 1 vol. ; PILOT, a Tale of the Sea. 2 vols. . PATH-FINDER, or the Inland Sea. 2 vols 50 50 50 25 50 50 PIONEERS, or the Sources of Tin; Susquehanna. 2 vols. . . .50 PRAIRIE. 2 vols 50 RED ROVER. 2 vols. ... 50 SPY, a Tale of the Neutral Ground. 2 vols. ...... TWO ADMIRALS, a Tale of the Sea. 2 vols. ..... TRAVELLING BACHELOR. 2 vols WYANDOTTE. 2 vols. . WEPT OF WISH-TON-WISH. 2 vols. ...... WlNG-AND-WING, or Le Feu- FOLLET. 2 Vols. ..... BRAVO, a Tale. £ vols. . 50 50 50 50 50 50 id In all Thirty-Three Different Works, or Sixty- Seven Volumes. N. B Any of the above "Works can be purchased separately, and forwarded by Mail to any part of the country. The Publishers have constantly on hand Complete Scls, bound in a Uniform Library Style, 2 vols, in one, 75 cents. These Works are sold by all Booksellers and Periodical Dealers throughout the country. STRINGER & TOWNSEND. Publishers, 222 Broadway, New-York. X yJ'ULAR MISCELLANEOUS WORKS. PUBLISHED BY £§©&©, ©TTKDINKkiEliS & T@WMi^E), 222 BROADWAY, NEW-YORK. OOPER.— The Sea Lions; or, the Lost Sealers. n,' ( 2 vols. .50 ■ he Oak Openings ; or, the Bee Hunter. '2 vols. 50 - Jack Tier ; or the Florida Reef. 2 vols. - - 50 The Crater; or, Vulcan's Peak. " 50 Kedskins. 2 vols. 50 Satanstoe. 2 vols. 50 r The Chainbearer. 2 vols. - • - . . 50 Ellinor Wvllis. 2 vols. .... 50 Afloat and Ashore. 4 vols. • - - - 1 DO Bravo. 2 vols. --..... 50 Deerslayer. 2 vols. 50 Homeward Bound. 2 vols. .... 50 Home as Found. 2 vols. 50 Headsman. 2 vols. ........ 50 Heidenmauer. . . . . . -50 Last of the Mohicans. 2 vols. ... 50 Lionel.Lincoln. 2 vols. - - . . - 50 Mercedes of Castile. 2 vols. • - • 50 Monikins. 2 vols. 50 Ned Myers. 1 vol. 25 Pilot. 2 vols. 50 PathFinder. 2 vols. ...... 50 Precaution. 2 vols. 50 Pioneers. 2 vols 50 Prairie. 2 vols. 50 Red Rover. 2 vols. 50 Spy. 2 vols. 50 Two Admirals. 2 vols. 50 Travelling Bachelor. 2 vols. .... 50 Wyandotte. 2 vols. 50 Wept of Wish-ton-Wish. 2 vols. ... 50 Water Witch. 2 vols. 50 Wing and Wing. 2 vols. 50 HERBERT.— Frank Forester's Field Sports of the United States and British Provinces of North America. 2 vols. 8vo. Cloth. - - - - 4 00 Frank Forester's Fish and Fishing of the United Stales and British Provinces of North America. 1 vol. 8vo. Cloth. - - - . 3 00 DeRmot O'Brien ; or, the Taking of Treda^fo. 50 Marmaduke Wvvil. .... . 37,1 Tales op the Spanish Seas. .... 25" GATLIN'S Notes of Eight Years' Travhi. in Europe with his Indian Collection. With nu- merous Illustrations. 2 vols. 8vo. - - • 4 00 CLARK — The Literary Remains of the late Willis G. Clark. 1 50 DU ^f As —The Count of Monte-Christo. 2 vols. 1 00 The Memoirs of a Physician. 2 vols. - - 1 00 Fernande; or, the Fallen Ansel. 50 George ; or, the Planter of the Isle of France. - 50 The Thousand and One Phantoms. — The War of the Women. 50 Genevieve ; or, the Chevalier of Maison Rou»e. 50 The Two Dianas. - 75 SUE.— Seven Capital Sins ; eornprisinbV u v»o^ ^ ^ ** \* G ■-•-, bV ^ 4ffl^ "W * £9* * \/\ o. *^T« A *