Ei5i s ORGANIZA.TION OF THE HOUSE. SPEECH HON. lt%. BENNETT, OF MISSISSIPPI. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DECEMBER 22, 1855, On the election of Speaker and the organization of the House of Representa- tives. ^^ ^y-' Mr. BENNETT, of Mississippi, said: Mr. Clerk: Howsoever much I may be dis- inclined to participate in the discussion of the vari- ous questions which have been presented to the attention of the House in its present disorgan- ized condition, I feel that it is due to the country and the people whom I have the honor in part to represent, that these questions should be placed in their proper light before the country. 1 should like to know why it is that, up to this late day, the majority party in this House have refused to unite in the selection of a Speaker to preside over the deliberations of this body duriner the present Congress? I hazard nothing in the expression that, had the Democratic party of the Union pre- sented itself here with only a majority of one, in less than twelve hours after our first meeting, die House would have been organized, and tiie necessary legislation of the country would now have been in a rapid state of completion. But, sir, from day to day, and week to week, we have been presented with the most startling proposi- tions by the majority party in this House, and resolutions alike violative oif every principle of parliamentary procedure and of the organic law of the land. I demand to know from gentlemen, from whence do they derive the authority to compel anyrnem- j bcr upon this floor to yield the constitutional right of voting of his own free will for Speaker, to preside over our deliberations.' Docs not the Constitution vest in each member of this House ti e right of hi.s own free will to vote for a mem- b( 1 to preside over the deliberations of this body as Speaker.' By what authority do members I pr. pose to limit and to circumscribe that right so \ gi J rantied by the Constitution of the United Si tcs.' Mr. Clerk, I would ask whether tliis is thi feast to which the D< mo -racy of the coun- try have been invited by fi sijn rule.' is it con- te" ded that the House catmot be organized with- ou members adopting the most disorganizing rc.'olutions for that end.' 1 would like to know •wlat healings are presented in the great political Ptndora's bex of the two gentlemen who have been presented by the Opposition as candidates for the Speaker's chair.' What political bland- ishments have they, that are so captivating as to seduce the Democrats of this House from the support of the man of their choice.' It is true, whilst the one, with a manly frankness, avowed himself openly against us on the great question of the day, yet I maintain that the other is equally a.s assiduous in his attempts to undermine the found- ation upon which the Democratic party stands. We have been told that the Democratic party was dead, that this party had risen upon the rums of both the old political parties; let me ask, is it the Bauqiio's ghost of Democracy that disturbs their slumbers? What is the proposition which has been sixb- mitted by the gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. .Smith ?] It is, that this House shall proceed by common consent to appoint the committees upon which shall devolve the important duties usually devolving on this branch of Congress. The very resolution presuppo.ses an organization; or does he address the proposition to the Hall tliat shel- ters us from the inclemency of the weather ? Does he not know that the appellation of " House of Representatives" is never given to the Repre- sentatives of the people until they have organized in obedience to the organic law and the legisla- tion of the country ? There is but one mode in which this House can be organized, and that is by a steady adherence to the provisions of the Constitution and laws passed under it. Then- is but one opening through which we must en'.er, in order ^to effect so desirable an object. The duties appertaining, under the law, to the Speaker cannot be transferred to any other person. The Sergeant-at-Arms is required to take an oath and to give bond and security, which are to be ap- proved of by the Speaker; and I maintain that the Speaker, when properly selected, cannot rightfully transfer that right to anybody else; and I urge, sir, that the members elect to this House, in tlicir unorganized capacity, have no power to alter or modify a law passed i)y this body when organized. But these are not the questions which /4 / it is my purpose to examine. We have voted for many days, and without success, to elect a Speaker. It lias been said by the Opposition that the Democratic party stood in the way of the organ- ization of the House l)y the adoption, in their caucus, of principles that insulted, and were at war with, the professions of those who otherwise possibly, if not probably, would unite with us in electing: our Speaker. What are those prin- ciples ? We have declared to the country that we arc in favor of civil and religious liberty, and is that tlie barrier which is placed between the southern American party and the Democratic party of this Union? I appeal to that party themselves, and ask them whether such has not been the construction by their own members of the eighth section of the Philadelphia platform, that it was proscriptive ? Is it not true, that in obedience to their ritual, which declares that none shall be placed in offices of honor or profit in the gift of the people or by appointment, bu.t native- born Protestant citizens, and the obligations of the oaths which they are required to take, they are compelled to vote against a Catholic or a for- eigner? Galic and Celt are alike proscriljed from a participation in the offices of the country. You swear that you will not vote or give your influ- ence for any man for any office in the gift of the people, unless he be an American-born citizen: in favor of Americans ruling America; nor if he he a Roman Catiiolic ; that you will, in all po- litical matters, so far as its order is concerned, comply with the will of the majority, though it may conflict with your personal preference. Did not the American party in Louisiana take that view of the eighth article of the platform, that Catholics and foreigners were proscribed ? When that platform was presented, they ignored and repudiated the eighth section of it, because of the proscription of those who professed the creed of the Roman Catholic church — because of its reli- gious intolerance. And not only that, but, unless I am misinformed, tlie gentleman from Louisi- ana, a member in this House, who was elected by the American party in Louisiana which repu- diated that portion of the platform, is harmoni- ously acting with the American party here in the support of Mr. Fuller, of Pennsylvania, for Speaker. Then I say, if they can thus unite and harmoniously act with a member of their own order who has repudiated the principles of their platform, with what pro)5riety or consistency can it be pretended upon this floor, that we have pro- scribed them, and that they cannot unite with us in the selection of a Speaker? We have in our resolutions given the same construction to the eighth section of the platform that their own party have given to it, and the same that many Protestant religious periodicals have placed upon it; and, sir, I maintain, if that article in their platform does not mean to proscribe Catholics, It means nothing. I cannot as a Democrat give my support to Mr. Fuller, if there were no other objections than that he is a member of the American party, and indorses that platform, the provisions of which, in my opinion, binds every one indorsing it to submit to whatever acts of oppression the North may inflict upon them. I proceed to prove that proposition. Suppose that the Republican party North and the American party South had have engaged in belligerent warfare, and that the North were the victors, and«the besieged party had sur- rendered at discretion and v/ere imploringly .suing for mercy and peace at the hands of Abolition- ists, and that the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. GiDDiN'Gs,] with full authority, was directed to draw up the terms of submission, they could not, in my opinion, have offered terms more humil- iating to the South than is presented in the Phil- adelphia platform. For years, sir, this slavery agitation has been going on between the North and the South; every act of political intrigue has been adopted by the North to legislate upon this slavery rpiestion, covertly avoiding the direct proposition by which the stability of the LTnion would be endangered; the gentleman from Ohio, as I supposed, having this one single idea in his mind in drawing up the terms of peace that let the North, by legislation or otherwise, aggress, until their fanatical cravings were fully satisfied, that the American party would be bound to sub- mit, indorsing the provisions of the Philadelphia platform. Now, sir, what is the first proposition of sub- mission indorsed by the South in the Philadel- phia platform? It is, sir, that the Union of these States is the paramount political good. What is a paramount political good? It is a good above all others; a good aljove the preservation of the Constitution, above the sovereignty of the States, above the protection of the institutions of the South. This, sir, is the first step of submission voluntarily made l)y the American party indors- ing the Philadelphia platform. NVith this ad- mission, let the North aggress as they may by I State or national legislation, the members of' the j American party who stand upon the Philadelphia platform dare not raise their voice or arm iiT driving back such wanton aggressions, if, in so doing it would have the slightest tendency to en- danger that Union, to which they have pledged I themselves to be the paramount political good, I They not only submit to a platform that requires • them to agree that the Union is the paramount j political good; but, sir, they agree to oppose every attempt to weaken or subvert it. Suppose the sectional parly in the North re- fuse to admit a new State into this Union, (which presents itself with a Republican form of gov- ernment, that being the only constitutional test,) because the State asking for admission adopts a pro-slavery constitution; and suppose, sir, they abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and refuse, under the law passed in conformity to the Constitution, to render to the master his fugitivu slave, and the South declares resistance to such oppressive acts of aggression, the first opposers we should meet to our resistance would be the American party standing upon and indorsing the Philadelphia platform. And why? Because, sir, they have already agreed that the Union of these States is the paramount political good, and that they oppose every attempt to weaken and sub- vert it. This, sir, is no overstrained conclusion. Do we not witness the most formidable array, now in this House elected, pledged to do the very thing I have aUeged ? I for one should not feel proud, standing on tliis floor as the Rep- Tesentative of a people who would submit to such insulting acts of aggression; but I know the spirit and the temper of the constituency that I liave the honor to represent on this floor, and I fcrl a most inexpressible pride in repre- ■senting a constituency who, knowing their rights, will dan' maintain tliem. But, sir, I am not through with the terms of peace submitted, to wiiich, in the Philadelphia platform, they pledge themselves. Tliey agree to uncomi-.-oniising antagonism to every principli^ of policy that endangers it, (the Union being with liii'm the paramount political good.) Tin' fanatics of the North assume to have the power to abolish the slave trade between the States, and abolisli slavery in tiie States, and the South should, as she will do, declare uncompromising resistance to such acts. Sir, by whom are we met.' It is the American party, if they continue firm to their platform, because they are pledged to uncompromising hostility to everjr principle of Eolicy that will endanger the Union, that having een by the American party admitted to be the paramount political good. It may be said that, ui order to sustain inv ]iosition, I am supposing extreme cases, and so the South has from time to time been lulled to repose upon this subject; but the rise and progress of Aljolitiogiism is fa- miliar to the youngest adult on the theater of ac- tion. How long back that they did not number •a " corporal's guard ?" It then danced most fan- tastically before the political jiarties in this coun- try, claiming, in the name of God and humanity, but slight aggression upon our rights. Mr. Calhoun, who then looked ahead with the un- ei-ring i-ye of projihecy, and foretold the alarm- ing demands it wovdd exact of thn South, was branded as an alarmist, and an ultra-agitator in the South. But the advocates of the Philadelphia platform not only yielded the riglit of resistance, as I have attempted in a desultory manner to present to this House, but they pledge themselves to advocate an eOjuitabie adjustment of all political differences •which threaten its integrity and perpetuity. The North claims that no other State sliall ever l;e admitted into this Union as a slave Stale. The American party at Philadelphia admits the Union to be the paramount poi.tical gfiod — opposition to every attempt to weaken or subvert it; uncom- promising hostility to every principle and jiolicy tliat will endanger it: the advocacy of an equit- able adjustment of all political diil'erences which tlireaten its integrity and pi>rpetuity. I ask candid men of all parties if they adhere in good faith lo the admissions in the Pliiladej- phia platform? Are ihey not bound to yield, as an equitable adjustment of all political ditFer- cnccs, that no other Slate shall ever come into this Union, except as a free Slate? Does it not seem, from the admissions and yieldings of the Ami'ri- can party, in the resohitions of their platform adopted at Philadelphia, binding themselves, let Congress, with Abolition rule, do as bigotry and fanatic'sm might seem ri'rhtand proper, that they would not resist if that resistance had the slight- est tendency lo disturb the peace and quiet of this Union, the Union being the paramount poli- tical good, according to their admission? But they still promise and agree to the suppression of all tendencies to political divisions, founded on geographical distinctions, or on the belief, that there is a real difference of interest and views between the various sections of the Union. Not content with having bound themselves against all resistance, they bind themselves to suppress tliat spirit of resentment and resistance that animates the heart of every freeman who loves equal rights and equal justice. Tiie southern hkui, wiien the Constitution has been disregarded, stripped of their property, and their honor insulted — are tliey to be met by this American party with arguments to suppress their feelings of insulted honor? But, sir, not content with the Surrender of every right of resistance, of rights violated, and honor insulted, they still I agree that, if the aggressions of the North shall , continue until wickedness and fanaticism shall i have glutted over its abominations, the slave in I chains would even dare to express sentiments I of resistance. This Philadelphia jilatform requires them to j^ield a habit of reverential obedience to 'all laws, whether national, State, or municipal, until declared unconstitutional by the proper au- thority — and this is the boon for a violated Con- stitution, violated rights, and insulted honor: a mock trial by an Abolition judge, with a rever- ential obedience until ihat judge may be pleased- to investigate the cause. I Mr. CI'tIv, having attempted in a very brief ; manner to give some of the reasons for not cast- , ing my vote for any one entertaining sentiments ' so at war with the interests of the South, I must be permitted, before I conclude this branch of my j subject, to call the attention of the House to an- I other fact. There are seats of members of this i House contested. I know not the character. birth- I place, or religious opinions of the members bc- j tween whom this contest is going on. It may be I that one or the other of these parties is a Roman Catholic or foreigner, and I should be unwilling 1 to see any man take his seat in that chair, bound ' by pnn^ious obligations to vote ;igainst either. ' What are the peculiar positions of the respcct- ■ ive candidates presented before the country for [Speaker? The gentleman from Massachusetts, ' [Mr. Bavks,] with great frankness and ciindor, iu ! the short biographical sketch which he gave of : himself politically, stated, that at the time of the I agitation in the Congress of the United States in I reference to the Kansas-Nebraska bill, ho was opposed to that measure, and that he is now in favor of a restoration of the Missouri com|)ro- ' misc, and opposed iv the extension of slav(^;-y, 1 not only into Kansas, but into any of the Terri- 1 tories of the United States. He tells us that lie is ' the Representative upon this floor of the strongest anti-slavery party in the United States. I have ' before me a pamphlet crmtaining the proceedings j of a convention of Abolitionists at Syracuse, New York, ami what do t!n^ say? 1 sup]iose, sir, tiiat tliis v/as a convention of conservative Abo- I litionists — not so ultra in feeling as the Abolition- I ists in the district from which the gentleman from , Massachusetts comi'S. Wiiat do tb.ey say? They ' claim under the Constitution to have the power i to abolish slavery everywhere in the United Slates, I '• RcsoUed, That we, tlierelbrc, reject as useless all pclipfiics fur limitiiiir, localizing, confining, or .ini:'liorating I slavery — all plaus forprotcctUig die iioii-slaveholding Statea from the aggressions of slavery, and from tlie liability of becoming ovorspre:id and overborne by it— wliicli do not look directly to the immediate and miconditional prohibition and suppression of slavery in all parts of the country." They pledge themselves to proceed to the ex- ercise of that power: " Raoloed, That we consider it the duty of the Legis- latures of the several States to pass laws forbidding, under heavy penalties, the arrest of any person as a fugitive slave, or under the so called fugitive slave bill. " Resolved, That this convention recommend the organi- zation of efficient committees in every county or congres- sioiial district, whose duty it shall be to raise funds, by hold- inir public meetiims or otherwise, for defraying the legal expanses and liiiuidating the fines of such persons as may be prosecuted for violations of the fugitive slave bill." They pledge themselves to constitute commit- tees throughout the United States for the purpose of raising funds-to pay the fines that may be im- posed upon individuals for resisting the execution of the fugitive slave bill— a lavir passed in obedi- ence to the express letter of the Con.stitution; And yet, sir, here is a gentleman presented for the speaiversliip and voted for in this House by one hundred and seven members, who states that lie represents a people who entertain stronger anti-.slavery sentiments than any other people in the Union. His people have not yet spoken upon the question of slavery in convention; what their sentiments may be when they shall speak, I will not pause novv" to inquire. But, Mr. Clerk, what arc the sentiments of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Fuller.'] iic states that, if he had been in Congress at the time of the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, he would have opposed the bill, and opposed the ] repeal of the Missouri restriction; but that inas- much as Congress has acted upon that question, he is willing to acquiesce in that law, and will vote against any proposition that may be pre- sented for its repeal. But there are other Terri- tories remaining over which territorial laws must be extended, and the gentleman has not said with regard to Minnesota and tliose other Territories, whether in the event of a proposition being offered to extend territorial laws over them, he is willing that the principle einbraced in the Kansas-Ne- braska act shall be extended to them. That ques- tion has not been answered by him, and in the contest between him and Mr. Wright, he occu- pied the position of an anti-Nebraska man before the people. Mr. Wright was the supporter of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and was defeated. Who docs the Democracy offer? We present you with a man who was the leader of the Kan- sas-Nebraska bill, and wlfcse eloquent voice was employed in carrying the Kansas-Nebraska bill through the Congress of the United States, and who is willing that the princijiles embraced in that bill shall" be extended to all the Territories belonging to the Government. I ask these gentlemen, as southerners, under all tlie circumstances that surround them, when the slavery question is presented in a most fearful aspect to the people of the South, and when the J'ree-Soil and Abolition sentiment is arrayed against us in this tLouse — I ask thern whether they w-i!l allow questions relating to the birth-place and religion of individuals to prevent them from uniting with us in the defense of southern rights? Mr. STANTON. I wish to know if the South desires that the restriction shall be removed fi-om the Territories of Minnesota and Oregon, so as to allow them to take their slaves into these Terri- tories? Mr. BENNETT. When I have finished my argument, I will answer any question that the gentleman may desire to put to me, but I prefer not to bo inteiTupted at this stage of my remarks. I will say, however, I am in favor of the people in all the Territories belonging to the United States, when forming their constitution, to say for themselves whether they will abolish or permit slavery. It has been said by the Opposition in this House that the Democratic party has ignored the slavery question, and in proof of that asser- tion i-eference has been made to an article m the Washington Union of the 5th of June, 1854. It is true that in that article the editor of the Union does take the ground that no national party can ever be formed in the United State."? upon the morality of the slavery question. Sir, has the South over implored the sympathy of the North upon the m'orality of slavery? Where have we demanded of tliem to unite with us upon its morality ? The South asks no sym- pathy of the North, either of the Democrats or Republicans, in regard to the morality of slavery. That is a question' for which the South alone is j responsibly. They are responsible at the bar of I their coumry, and at the bar of Heaven, in rela- i tion to the sinfulness of slavery, and it is a re- j sponsibility which they are ready to iKicet. We ! admit with feelings of gratitude that the northern Democracy have sustained our constitutional rights to slavery, and that is all we ask. But, sir, the gentleman left off in his quotation from tlie editor of the Union just where I wish to com- mence speaking, in regard to the nationality of the Democratic party. He says, in that same ar- ticle, that we can form a national party upon the constitutional protection of slavery, and that the North and the South did harmoniously unite in the Baltimore platform upon the constitutional right of protection to slavery. "What do they say in the Baltimore platform > In the first article upon the subject of slavery they say " that the Congress of the United States has no power under tlie Constitution to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the States where it exists," &.C. The next section in the platform provid( s that the foregoing proposition shall be made to extend to all cases where the subject of slave agitation may take place. What does it ! mean by the " foregoing proposition ?" Why, [that Congress, under the Constitution, has no I power to legislate upon the subject of slavery. I Then, sir, if the subject of slavery can be agitated in the Territories of the United States, the l^it^ imate conclusion is,that, underthe Constitution, Congress has no power to legislate itpon the sub- ject of slavery in tiie Territories. The next section in the Baltimore platform on the subject of slavery is, that they opposi^ the agitation of the slavery question both in and out of Congress; and yet gentlemen tell us we have ignored the question of slavery. Let me tell gentlemen to look to their own household before they make that charge against the Democracy. Li.t those who live^n glass houses be cautious how they cast the first stone. The great question agitated in the public mind. is the question of slavery extension , and the power of Congress to legislate on the subject of slavery in the Territories. The Aboliti()n party claim everywhere the power of Congress to abolish daveryin the Territories; in favor of the restora- tion of the Missouri compromise, and opposed | to any State hereafter bemg admitted into this Union with a pro-slavery constitution. And i what is the position of the American party upon ] this most momentous question? They drclare, ' in their Philadelphia jdatform, a tender and sa- ored regard to those acts of statesmanship which are to be contradistinguished from the ordinary acts of the legislation of the country, because tiiey are in the nature of compacts and agreements, and arc so to be received as the settled policy of the country. Here is a din-ct recognition of the Missouri compromise of 1820, as being a com- pact and agreement between the North and the South, that ought to be looked to as the fixed and settled policy of the country; and standing upon that platform, they oceiqiy a position in antagonism to the Kansas-Nebraska bill. But they do not stop here; they say the American party, having risen upon the ruins of the old po- litical parties, are not responsible for the obnox- ious acts and violated pledges of either. What obnoxious acts and violated pledges do they mean but the action of the Congress of the United States upon the Kansas and Nebraska bill ? The Republican party in their conventions, both State and National, say "that the repeal of the Mis- souri comjiromise is a violation of the plighted faith vihich the South was under to the Nortli, which no plea can justify, and no lapse of time can palliate." Such is the language of the American jiarty North. Yet this American party South says, that that act — the repeal of the Missouri com- promise — was an obnoxious act and a violated pledge. In this they do intend, as I maintain, directly to condemn the repeal of the Missouri compromise, i ask the gentlemen standing on the Philadelphia platform, if the gentleman from Ohio should introduce in this House a propo- sition to restore the Missouri comproniisr, if they would not be estopped, according to their own admission , from using any influence in oppos- ing its restoration ? The northern members are elected by their constituents pledged to repeal the Kansas-Nebraska act, and to restore the Missouri restriction. The one, the Missouri compromise, you admit to be in tlie nature of compacts and agreements, and therefore to be received as the fixed policy of the nation, and Uie other to be obnoxious acts and violated pledges. It is well known that the whole Pccpublican and American party North claim that Congress has the power to legislate u])on the subject of slavery in the Territories, and are pledged to legis- late so as to prevent any State coming into the Union, save as a free State; and yet the Amer- ican party, standing on the Philadelphia plat- form, expressly pretermit any opinion, whether Congress has, or has not the power under the Constitution to do those very things; and in view of the inconstant position which the American party occupy, as I have shown, how can they at- tempt to charge us with the blame of preventing an organization of this House .' I appeal to the patriotism of the American party — I appeal to that feeling of Southern honor, and that sentiment which impels y.iu to the proti-ction of your own altars, and I ask, when you have placed around yourselv# a wall of fire,'when you have hemmed iuid hedged your.sclves in by adopting creeds in your platforms to which it is im])OSsiblc you can procure the assent of iIk; Democratic party, iri view of that awful crisis which the daily mani- festations around us prove that you are hasten- ing, if it would not be m;\gnanimous to forego your peculiar prejudices regarding the supposed aggressive policy of the Roman Catholic church, and the supposed inimical mercantile and polit- ical influence of foreigners, and come to the rescue of our common rights and common interests? I make this appeal in view of the fact which must be plain to every impartial observer of what has transpired in this House during the last two weeks, that the object in the origination of this new party was not to further the cause of Aboli- tionism, and divide and distract the South— and let it be recollected that, up to the time of the repeal of the Missouri compromise, ni)t one American council had been establis'ied in the South — audi ask if, as they maintain, they do not proscribe men for their l)irth-plaee or religion, but believe in civil and religious libi'rty, is this not the most appropriate occasion to say so ? And as regards the question of slavery, do we not present them with a platform under which it can never be claimed that, by any provision of' the Constitution, the right to hold slaves was either created or abolished? Our doctrine is, that the Constitution recognized slavery as it existed at the time; that it is under and by virtue of the provisions of that instrument that slavery is now practiced and shielded; and that the southern man, if his slave runs away, and is found in a free State, has as much ri'glit and authority to reclaim him as the northern man has to the rec- lamation (if his stray or stolen horse. Slavery- exists in the States by sufferance of the Consti- tution, not merely by local law; the people, when they meet in convention, ma}-, in fonning their organic laws, either admit or pr&iiibit it. li', then, on the acquisition of new territory by the Union, slavery is found io exist, or is after- wards taken there, the moment the Constitution is extended over the Territory the slave-owner is entitled to protection in the proprietorship of his slave, and is entitled to that protection until the people, in obedience to the Constitution, meet in convention preparatory to admission as a State into the Union, and in that conviction prohibit slavery. Congress, under the Constitution, has no power to legislate upon the subject except for the ]u-otection of existing rights. It can neither create nor abolish slavery, nor can v. contV'r that power on tlie territi>rial Legislatures, since it can- not delegate authority which it does not possess. Congress holds and ex<'rcises rights over the Ter- ritories as the guardian of all the States, each having the same common interest. Any action, therefore, by any of the Slates having a direct tendency to populate a Territory for the express purpose of forming the political complexion of the'people of iheT.rriiory, in order (o strengthen the Abolition States, if no'l a violation of the spirt of the Constitution, is a fr;'.ud on the other States. 6 I understand that gentlemen are opposed to the Kansas-Nebraska bill, because by that act aliens are entitled to exercise the right of suf- frage. 1 desire to know from the gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from Ala^pma, who have taken that position, whether they intend to «ay that the Congress of the United States has the power to prescribe who shall be entitled to exercise the right of suffrage ? I maintain thsit it is a powerreservod to the States; that it is a supreme and absolute power reserved to the States. That question was debated between the Federal and the Republican parties at the forma- tion of the Constitution. A proposition wasmade in the Convention to strike out all after the words, '•' qualification of electors," that some other clause might be inserted, by which the right of suffrage should be limited to freeholders alone. That proposition was voted down. The reason ad- vanced by the Federal party in support of the motion was this: that if the Constitution stood as it now stands, the National Legislature would be made subservient to the will of the State Le- j gislatures. On the opposite side of the House , it was contended, that the State Legislatures were ! the best judges of the temper and disposition of those upon whom they should confer the right of suffrage. Then, if the gentleman means to say that the i States cannot confer that power on an alien until he has been naturalized by complying Avith the uniform naturalization laws, which Congress has power to pass, he would change the position of the Constitution, and instead of the National Legis- lature being made subservient to the will of the State Legislatures, the State Legislatures would be made "subservient to the will of the Congress of the United States. I maintain that this is a limited Government, and that it can exercise no powers except those which have been expressly delegated bv the States and the people, unless some other assumed power be necessary to carry into effect the expressly delegated power. And, sir, whenever an assumed power has been invoked j as necessary to carry into effect an expressly del- j egated power, that assumed power must always be exercised in subordination to the rights which are reserved to the States. | Then, with that construction of the phraseology j of the Constitution, and the debates in the forma- 1 tion of the Federal compact, I ask by what au- thority it is said in this House that the States have no power to confer the right of suffrage on aliens? I would ask gentlemen of the Opposi- tion, where foreigners are allowed the right of suffrage within a few months after their arrival in the country, whether they obtain that privilege under the uniform naturalization laws? Some States have permitted, and do now permit, free negroes to exercise the right of suffrage, and when did the Congress of the United States take from the free negro his property qualification? By what authority have the States conferred the right of suffrage on those people, except by the authority of the reserved rights which the States enjoy under the Constitution, and in accordance with the construction of the Constitution which I have given ? I have very briefly noticed some of the argu- ments of the Opposition. I regret that it has been made necessary for me in this House to notice arguments of such a character — arguments lietter suited to the hustings than to legislative bodies. I now beg, Mr. Clerk, for a very short time, Do call the attention of the House to some remarks that fell from the gentleman from Ohio the other day, upon the subject of slavery and slave hold- ers. And, sir, I must begin by sayins: that, in reply to the argument addressed to this House by those who deny the constitutional right of my constituents to hold slave property, I have th« same answer to make that I would make to the highwaymen in your streets who should attempt bv force to rifle from me my goods: and, sir, has? it'come to this, in the halls of the National Legis- lature, among State Representatives, all bound by the same compact, and protected by the sama j stars and stripes, that language should go forth I to the country so treasonable to the institutions of the South, as that uttered by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Giddixgs,] who said that he would advise slaves to resist the lawful correction of their owners — advise slaves to do that, con- travening the express laws of the land, and in gross violation of the precepts of Holy Writ, which commands servants to obey their ma.sters ! Slavery has existed from the earliest history of man. It was brought into the colonies by European and Yankee merchants. As early as 1720, African slaves were brought over to Amer- ica, and, though many of the southern colonies protested against the introduction of slavery, their remonstrances were disregarded. When slave labor ceased to be useful and valuable to the northern States, they sold to the citizens of the South, and for years slaves were bought and sold, and the North reaped the profits. It is not contended that slavery is established by positiv* lav/; but at the time of the adoption of the Fed- eral Constitution the African race was held in bondage in this country: in some of the States it is still so held; and, although we recognize no difference in the political rights and privileges of the various sections of this Union, we maintain that all are alike entitled to protection in the en- joyment of proprietary riglits which were legally theirs before the declaration of independence, and which no provision in the Constitution abro- gated or modified. We would scorn, sir, as southern people, to present ourselves as suppli- ants at the feet of Abolitionists, and claiming mercy at their hands; but, sir, we come as equals in this Union— equal in rights and privileges — and claiming nothing more, and determined to accept nothing less than that protection which the Constitution accords to us. I come in the name of my people, not with threats, but with warnin£;s. If you love the Union, by the high obligation which that sentiment imposes on you, wi! warn j-ou to preserve it. You can if you will; but if, in defiance of our warnings, and in violation of both law and justice, you are still resolved to encroach upon our rights, see that you are not overwhelmed in its mighty ruins. Sir, it was in 1851 that this aggressive spirit on the part of the North caused the people in my State to meet in convention; and in that conveik- I tion the Union party of the State declared that there were aggressions by the N