Glass. Book. To^ SPEECH MRrTIJRNEY,OF TENNESSEE, ON THE COMPROMISE BILL. D£U7KHK]D IW SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 1860 WASHINGTON: rRINTCP AT THE CONGRESSIONAL nLOBC OrfWC. 1350, i al of the soil ; aiijects of legis- ' lation consistant with theConstitinionof the United States ' and the provisions of this act ; but no law shall be passed ' interfering with the primary disposal of the .-oil, iior inre- ' spect to jifricun slavery; no tax shall be imposed upon the ' prop rty of the United States; nor shall the lands or other ' properly of non-residenL= be taxed higher than the lands or ' other property of residents. All the laws pas>ed by the ' legislative .issemhly and governor shall he submitted to the ' C'ongress of the United Slates, and, if disapproved, shall be ' null and of no effect.' " Now, we ask our readers to compare this provision with th.it we have quoted from the Clayton compromise of 1848, and tell us the difference between them, so far as the ques- tion of slavery is concerned. We have compared them carefully, for the purpose of deteeting any diacrepaney ; and after mature deliberation, we can see nothing, except that the Clayton compromise forbids the pa.ssage of any law 'rc- spcctino slavery,' while the proposed adjustment forbids the passage of ariy law 'in retpect to African slavery.' We must confess it requires better eyes, or wor.^e than ours, to see any real difference between the two provisions." I propose to show that this allegation is palpa- bly untrue. In fact, so far as the reason of my opposition is concerned, I assert it to be positively untrue. Although 1 am in favor of the amend- ment proposed by the honorable Senator from Mississippi, yet if that amendment should fail, and other important amendments be made, I will give my vote for the bill, however important I re- gard the amendment of the Senator from Missis- sipni. The editor of the Union places himself before the country as a sort of high-priest of the Demo- cratic parly, and proposes to read out of it certain members of that party because they choose not to obey his dictation and commands; because they choose to think and act for theinselves; because they choose to represent their cotistituents and not represent Mr. Ritchie. In that article ho has print- ed the vote on what in called the Clayton compro- mi.se bill, which pas.'ed this bo'Jy two years ago, and very correctly places my vote in favor of its passage. And he then propounds the interroga- tory, " what is there in this bill in relation to the great question of slavery ihnt was not m the bill for which these gentlemen voted two years ago?" He th«n goes on, and aitemptB to show that the two bills are precisely the same, and that theie is in fact but the difference of one word, according to his account. He professes to give an account from the record, which I shall show before [ have done to be palpably untrue. What are the differ- encea, then, in point of fact between this bill and the one for which i voted, the " Clayton compro- mise bill," two years ago.' Why, sir, that was exclusively a territorial" bill. This is a territo- rial bill and a Stale bill — a Ijill to admit a State as well as to provide governments for the territories. The former was nothing more nor less than a territorial bill; and its only provision was to create territorial governments for the territories of Oregon, California and New Mexico. That bill was found- ed, in my judgment, upon the non-interference doctrine fully and completely, and prevented the territorial government from legislating upon the subject of excluding slavery from ih6 territories, leaving the rights of the southern people depend- ant upon the constitutional laws of the United Stales, upon which we were then and are now per- fectly willing to risk our rights. If we have no constitutional rights, there is no use in saying iiny- thing about the matter, as I luive no hopes of any justice at the hands of the North. But if we have cojistitutional rights, we desire that they should be protected and given to u.s. The Clayton com- promise bill did this. It stood upon the non-inter- vention doctrine. It provided a speedy remedy for the adjustment of the que.?tion whethfr slavery should or should not exist in the territories. That bill left the matter to the Supreme Court, and thus every r'ght given by the Constitution was com- pletely secured to the Sjuth. How is it in^ relation to the bill now before us.' For I propose to respond very briefly to the inter- rogatory put by the would be liigh-priest of the Democratic party. How does this Lull stand .' Why, sir, thei-e is a, provision for the admis.sion of a State into the Union, and that Stale, too, con- tainii? the identical territory to which the Clay- ton bill gave a territorial government, and embra- cing all the territory which I regard to be of much consequence or importance, with a provision pro- hiliiting slavery within the limits of that Slate. But if that were all, the bill would not be so very objec- tionable. But, further, what is the measure uUo the support of which Mr. Ritche tries to whip the Democratic party in this body? Thi.'^ Iiill includes territory enough within the limits of the proposed State of California to constitute at the lowest cal- culation three States, one or t^^"o of them south of the Missouri compromise line, 36° 30'. And this, too, when it is proposed that this State of Califor- nia, with this immense boundary, shall beadmitte'd, not for the purpose of its remaining one State, for no man coiuemplates any such thing. None be- lieve that California is to remain for all time to come one Siale, with such immense limits. The friends of the bill conteniplate no such thing. The chairman of the commiitte that reported this bill« has proclaimed to the S^'nate and to the country, that at a subsequent periud, whenever it may be deemed necessary, other Stales may lie admitted from the State of California. In the mean time the constitution of that State is to answer the important purpose of the Wilmot proviso to the surplus.ter- ritory within that State. • That constitution is to prohibit slavery, and make it perfectly certain that whatever States may be formed out of California, they will come into the Union as free States; for it is provided by the Constitution of the United States that no State shall be divided into two or more States without the assent of said Slate. It would then require the assent of both States — thf>». is, of the people forming the new State to be au- mitted from California as well as of the people of the State of California. The State of California would never give her consent to forming a slave State out of her territory, after she herself had been admitted as a free State. I take it, then, that so far as the admission of California is concerned, with her present boundaries, it is nothing less than the Wilmot proviso in its most effective, and there- fore most odious and offensive form. Offensive, because, being in the form of a State, we cannot test its constitutionality, as we could and would do if applied to a territorial government, and yet the effect, if not the exclusive object, is to exclude slavery from territory hereafter to be admitted as a Siate or States. There is, then, some difference between the Clayton compromise bill, and that now before us, called by Mr. Ritche " the adjust- ment." The Clayton compromise bill left Texas the ©n joyment of her rightful boundaries. It only pro- posed to provide jjovernments for the territories of Oiesron, California, and New Mexico. The Clayton compromise bill did not propose to purchase from Texas some ten degrees of territo- ry, and enough of it south of 36° 30' to form at least two additional States, which, if permitted to remain in the State of Texas, would remain slave territory, and which, if admittad into the Union from the State of Texas, will inevitably be admit- ted as slave Slates. But if we take them from under ihe constitution of Texas, and put them into a territory subject to the Wilmot proviso, we would enlarge the subject of contention, and they will be finally admitte'd as free Slates. Here is a propo.sition, then, which did not exist in the Clay- ton compromi.?e bill, of taking from under a slave con.stituiion ten degrees of territory, and convert- ing it into fiee soil. There was no such proposi- tion as that in the Clayton compromise bill. And what further is there in this bill.' True, the amount of money to be paid for converting this slave territory into free territory is left blank — ten or fifteen millions will, perhaps, be proposed. It is, then, proposed to make the people of the South pay ten or fifteen millions — and pay it for what purpose.' for what benefit? In order that this im- mense teriitory shall be taken from th.em and con- verted into free territory. Mr. Ritchie can see nothing in all this, he cannot, for his life, perceive any difference between this bill and the Clayton com|iromise bill. Mr. Ritchie publishes an extract from the Clay- ton o mi promise bill, and then from the bdl now under consideration. The extract which he pub- lishes from the Clayton compromise bill, reads as follows: " No Irtw shall be passed respectini tlie estahlislimpnt of relisiin, or rt;sp«cting slavi-ry, "r iiuerfering wiUi thi- prima- ry du-^pooHl or the public lands." He sayqihat the only difference between the two bills is themseriion of the word '< African" before the word ".'jlavery" in the bill now under consid- eration. He then goes on to show that this is the only difference between the two propositions. Mr. President, I propo.se to show that there are A palpable errors — to call them by no worse name — Tn this bill. The only difference that Mr. Ritchie can perceive between the two bills is that in one bill the territorial le-jisbture was prohibiteii from Wislaling "on thr subject nf slavery," «nd in the onier "on the subject of African slavery." On looking at the Clayton compromise bill, n true copy of which I have procured from the Secretary, I find that the provision is in these words: " But no law.^liall !>.• pass»-d res-pecliiigtlie proliibiiion or e-;tal)li3liii)"iil of j?,Vitnii .■slavery." The Clayton compromise bill was reported in language identical to that of the bill now under consideration. The Senate, includingmyself among others, was dissatisfied with this identical lan- guage, which Mr. Ritchie has fallen so deeply in love with. A majority of the Senate, being dis- satisfied witii the language of that bill as reported, struck it out, and inserted what I have just read to the Senate. Mr. Ritchie did not then under- take to denounce the whole Senate for thus amend- ing the bill. He did not then perceive tliat the Senate had done wrong. He did not then com- plain of the aciion of the Senate; but now, air, he ooniplnine most lustily, and he gives us what he calls a true record, when it turns out that he has not examined the record, or, if he has examined it, that he has given a false or untrue account of it. Mr. Ritchie, at his own pleasure, assigns rea- sons for the conduct of gentlemen who have acted with me in opposition to this bill. 1 would repeat that, so far as 1 am individually concerned, the rea.sons assigned by him are untrue, and have not the semblance of truth to sustain them. I consider the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi o.s a great improvement of the bill; but my vote shall not dfpend upon the adoption of that amendment, because if it be rejected and other important amendments be made, I shall vote for the bill. But, sir, Mr. Ritchie proceeds in his article and aays: " This is hi'tor}-, for it is derived from tlio public rpcords; and yet, strange lo say, some of tlie ePhtli'nit.n who, lei'.'i than two ytars ago, sustained ttie Clayton ce, are now movins heaven and earth to defeat an ailjustinent, siruij, «9 their principal reawn,a lauseideutic>^l v-ilh the simitar clttuse of the Clai/on compromise. Tukiitn alt these tliinss iitto comi'lerntion. whet are we to Ihinkl The friends of lliu proposed adjustment have expressly told its enemies from the South, that tliey vviTi; willing to strike out the f ature touchina; slavery, which some gentlemen fiom the South (who luil voted for thr- same feature in the Clayton contpromise) ohj(,'otejto»j.'] How long since he abandoned hia company .' How long since he commenced de- nouncing him ? How long has it been discovered to be unpardonable to be found m company with the Senator from Mis.souri, [Mr. Benton ;■] Very recently, I take it; for I have heard that Mr. Ritchie would not publish, until very recently, extracts from panersin Missouri disapproving of the course of the Senator from Mis.soari. JNothing of the kind could ever find its way into Mr. Ritchie's paper until veiy recently, when he found it was expedient to denounce that Senator; and, since that time, he has even denouncf d others if they gave a solitary vote with him. Does he not know that Mr. Benton approves every word in this bill, and would support every provision of the bill if presented as separate mea.sures, and that he only objects because t{iey are blended in one bill.' So that, in substance and measures, Mr. Ritchie is actins; with Col. Benton, whdo I, for the sake of principle, am fighting them both. He denounces me for voting with Col. Benton. In relation to those other gentlemen enuinerated here with whom it is alledged Island side by side, I deny it; I repudiate them. I have one declaration to make to Mr. Ritchie and to the country, and I hope that my constituents will read it and ponder over it, and if it isunworthy of their representative they will repudiate me. I stand here to advocate and defend their rights, and in the cxaniination of great measures and great principles, I am not to be o induwd to vote in a particular way because that ' would bring me in company with particular gen- I tlcrnen I am not one of those who would vote against a bill because certain other gentlemen chose to vote for if. 1 would rather act with Satan himself, i and be right, than act with the best man that ever I lived and be wrong. 1 shall examine all meaaurea ' submitted for my action in this body on their own merits, and I shall cast my vote according to my judgment of the merits of every measure, without [ looking to see who votes for it or who votes against it. Mr. Ritchie may not be able to appre- j ciate this, or he may think the people of the coun- ! try 80 remarkably stupid and ignorant that they j can be rallied for or against a measuse on account of the men who vote for or against it. Sir, he is mistaken. He underrates the intelligerce of the people, who look at these measures for themselves. The people will form their opinions for them- 1 selves; and no matter who votes for or against, they will never fail to use every effort to prevent ' the passage of an obnoxious or unjust law, or to i secure the passage of a beneficial and just one. Mr. President, I have now answered the main I points in the charge of Mr. Ritchie against me and | others, and have answered them truly, at all events. 1 am willing to go before the country i with my response. I would say here that this is j the only mode by which anything favoring the position which ! and those who act with me oc- | cupy can go to the country. In other words, the 1 only mode by which anything in opposition to : this measure can reach the peofile is by a speech j delivered on this floor. Every press, excepting the Repui)lic — and that, I believe, stands neutral on this question — every press, or the two promi- nent presses, are out in favor of this measure. All three were in favor of it at one time. This paper of Mr. Ritchie particularly has become very warm and zealous for it, and has even denounced southern Democrats who find fault with it, and undertakes to read them out of the party, because they will not blindly support a measure which their judgments condemn. How stands this matter.' What is the relative strength of the bill with the southern Democracy of this body.-' According to my estimate there can be found but five southern Democrats in favor of it. There are certainly eleven opposed to it. And while there are eleven against and five for the position of Mr. Ritchie, he undertakes to denounce the eleven, and read them out of the party. Mr. FOUTE. "Will the honorable Senator al- low me for a moment? Mr. TURNEY. Certainly. Mr. FOOTE. If I understand their position, not one of the honorable Senators from the South, to whom allusion has been made, has declared himself to be entirely opposed to this measure. They were all very particular in declaring that if certain amendments were made they would favor the measure. 1 now beg leave to say to the hon- orable Senator that, so far as I am concerned, 1 am in favor of amendments, and have been from the beginning of this controversy down to the present moment. If reasonable amendments be made, I hope there will not be the least difference between the different Democratic Senators from the South on iliis measure. If the honorable Senator from Loui.siana [.Vlr. Soule] was correctly understood the other day, he was very far from being opposed to this measure ^0/0 caio, but declared himself tc be in favor of it if certain amendments were irjade, I do not believe that there is one man on this side of the house who will not support this measure it: the event of sucli amendments being made as wili render it acceptfllile to ail. Mr. TURNEY. Mr. President, I really do' not see the point of the explanation, neither can f conceive why it was necessary to interrupt me in order to make the explanation. I was speaking of Mr. Ritchie's article against me and others. Mr. FOOTE. Did you not speak of Senators froin the South .' Mr. TURNEY. I spoke of Senators from the South with a view only to show the number for and against the bill, and I repeated at ieat^t half & dozen times that I would be satisfied %vith the bils if certain amendments be made. I have gone further. I have gone on to show that, even if this amendment of the Senator from Mis.sissippi [.Mr. Davis] be rejected, yet if other important amendmenis be made I shall vote for the bill. I want to know who are the friends of the bill and who are not. When we speak of a bill, wc, speak not of a bill as it may be amended, but as it is on the table. I would say that tliere is not a man in America who would oppose this bill if it should be so amended as to suit his conveniences and views; riot one. When I speak of this bill, 1 speak of it as it is, not of it as it may be amended or changed, for then it may become an entire new- bill. Mr. FOOTE. I am sorry to be under the necessity of interrupting the honorable gentieman again. Does the honorable Senator from Ten- nessee wish to be understood as declaring that, in his opinion, any friend of this bill has opposed reasonable amendments .' Does he not know, does not the country know, that the honorable chair- man of the committee of thirteen, in the beginnings and ever since, has offered no opposition to rea- sonable amendments.' Has not the honorable Senator from Michigan [Mr. Cass] pursued the same course.' Have we not all done so? Have. not those of us who are in favor of the measure expected and desired that modifications would be made? Several, iiicluding myself, have declared their determination, at a seasonable time, to offer amendments. I understand, then, from the in- dications around me, that there will be no opposi- tion to the bill, of an inflexible character, if it be properly amended. Mr. TURNEY. I do not know exactly what the Senator means by inflexible opposition. I really do not know how to discuss the merits of a bill not before us. 1 will not discuss the merits of the bill as it may be after it shall have been amended, but as it is now. How are we to dis- cuss what the bill will be after it shall have beeii amended, when we do not know how it will be amended? 1 was not speaking of the conduct of Senators at all. I was speaking of the course of this high-priest, or rather of this man who would be high-prie.iuh, to be found anywhere, call liim a Calhouiii.st, call him a di.sunionist, or any other ippmbrinuo form, it' you <'h.>oKo 1 cliHllengc Mr Ritchie, and others who tttke hi.s position, to point ne to a solitary man who acts with me, who de- nanils for the South any more than the Constiiu- lon guaranties. Is there any man that ilemands "or the South more than equality with the people )f the North .' Has any southern man proposed o exclude the northern people from migrating to he ttrriiories? Has any such idea as that been :'lvanced or advocated by the southern people.' N'o, sir; far from it. All they ask, and all they over have asked, i.s their con.-^titutional rights; that hey shall be permiited to enter the territtiries with iuir property, upon an equal fooling and with ?qual rights with their brethren of the free States. This is all they ask. They ask no more than hat. And anybody who supposes that the Siuth villsul-imit toanythiniles3,irreatly under-esiimates lie peo-.le of the SoUth. They chiim to be free- nen, and they claim that the Constitution was as nuch nude for them as for the peojde of the North. But Mr. Ritchie says that the integrity and na- lonality of the Democratic party rnu.-t be pre- served, and it can only be preserved by a total sacrifice of all ihpse rights of the southern people. ' And because I, for one, will not agree to this .sacri- ice, does he hold me up and denounce me. \ Nov,', I ask what Senators mean when they talk i ;o you of extreme South and of extreme southern ' ! men.' Will gentlenien point me to any iinrea.«on- h able demnnd made by eouthern men? The Con- ^ . alituiion of the coumry makes them equal to the North, and they would be degraded and disgraced, || were they to consent to be anythin» less. I hnpe i they will never consfot to surrender any portion j; of their constitutional rights. Mr. Ritchie has taken occasion, also, to de- ' nounce the Missouri compromise line. He de- 1 nounces it, and denounces all those who advocate i' it. Why, sir, Mr. Ritchie has gone for north of ,; 36° 3U' himself. Reduce C tlifomia to the line of 36° 30'; run the line through Texas; compensate Texas for whatever you may purcha.se of her ter- ' ritory, and then organize territorial governments founded upon the non-intervention docinne, and I V will vote for the bill. Will we gain nothing by I' that? We know thut we will gain at least two jl southern States in Texas. There will be no dis- !| pute in relation to that. If that ptrt of the terri- i| tory of Texas remain under a slave cons'.itution, ' be kept under it, it will come into the Union as a slave State. We frnoic that,and we know further, ,' from the signs of the times, that if this part of the jl territory of Texas !)e idken from her, and put under the territorial form of government, it is des- 1' lined to come into the Union as a free Stare. There lis the povtr to accomplish it. If the southern '. boundary of California be reduced to the hue of : 3l)° 30', territory enough will be left south <>f that j line 10 form one Slate at least, with an equal chance j: of making it a slave State, which is all that the I South can ask or I'emand. There is not a south- ,1 ern man who would demand to the letter the con- I stitutional rightsof the South. I defy Mr. Ritchie, ij 1 defy any ono else, to designate a soli'ary man in jl the South who demands his full share of constitu- j lional right. If the South were to demand that, • they would not only demand that the Wilmot pro- I viso should not be spread over the territories, hut J they would require ttiat ai.y obstruction, any diffi- ' cullies, growing out of any doubt in relation to the laws of Mexico, ought to tie removed at once, and ih.tt the right to cjirry slaves into the territories should be recognized by this Government. They would do thi-:, if they demanded all their consti- tutional rights as equal citizens of thi.^s Union. I ] undertake to say, tlieref.ire, that Mr. Ritchie has no right to read tv/o-tliinis of the Dem-'i-ratic party of the South out of that party for dllK-rmg with ' him. and fi>r maintaining the rights of the South. 1 believe that the Democratic party are governed i)y democratic republican doctrines. We might have a right to turn Mr. Ritchie out, but he has none to expel us. I shall, therefore, still regard myself as belonging to the Democratic party, and shall continue to act with it, regardle.ss of Mr. Ritchie. I will conclude, by sMying, that I hope .■iiid trust the time is not far disuuit when there Hi 1 be a press in the city of Washington that will do some little justire to the people of ihe South and will appeal to tie country in their Lehaif. '