TJT 1 mf Wffv ' cP ^^ 0^- '".., '. i \ ^~ <^ .v f » / '^- C\- s '^V. c^^ •/' •-^'\ .. -V •-s^. "^^,<^ \' \' ■/- '-^/ ..^^'% ■^■ .-b.^ •^ o V L> ^ .J) ^0 -^^ \ v^' .^- ^' .0- ^- -^ .0 V ^ \V .^^^" V^'. '.ng'^hy AH, Ritchie, y. SPEECHES OP G E R R I T SMI T H IN CONGRESS. NEW-YOEK: MASON BROTHERS. 1 8 5 5 . Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1855, BY MASON BROTHERS, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New- York. JOHN A. GRAY, PRINTER AND 8TERE0TYPER 95 and 97 Cliflf street, N. Y. *4 * * ( \ . . V . • The papers collected in this volume, are copied, without change, from their original publication. Mr. Smith was in Congress but a single Session, That Session be- gan December 5, 1853, and ended August 7, 1854. Owing to bad health, he did not take his seat until December 12th. CONTENTS. PAGE Letter to the Voters of the Counties of OsvraGo and Madison, 9 Speech on the Reference of the President's Message, . 13 Answer to the Question of Mr. Wright, op Pennsylvania, 33 Speech on the Resolutions of Thanks to C.vptain Ingraham, 35 Resolutions on the Putjlic Lands, 41 Speech on "War, 4.5 Speech on the Distribution of Seeds ey Government, . 69 Speech on the Homestead Bill, 11 Letter explaining Vote on the Homestead Bill, . . 93 Speech on the Bill to aid the Territory of Minnesota IN constructing a Railroad for Military, Postal, and for other Purposes, 9t Speech on the Second Deficiency Bill, . . . . 10 "7 Temperance, Ill Speech on the Nebraska Bill, 113 Speech on the Meade Claims, 211 Speech against Limitintg Grants op Land to White Persons, 225 Speech on Polygamy, 229 Speech on the Pacific Railroad, 235 Speech on the Abolition of the Postal System, . . 259 VI CONTENTS. PAGE Speech on SuppLTiNa the City of "Washington with "Water, 283 Speech on the Mexican Treaty and "Monroe Doctrine," 281 Letter announcing his Purpose to Resign his Seat in Congress, 305 Second Speech on the Richard "W. Meade Bill, . .307 Speech for the Harbor op Oswego, . . . . 311 Letter to Senator Hamlin on the Reciprocity Treaty, . 315 Speech on Postage Bill, 335 Speech in Favor of PRoniBifiNG all Traffic in Intoxicat- ing Drinks in the City of "Washington, . . . 341 Speech against Providing iNtoxicATiNG Drinks for the Navy, 363 Speech in Favor of Indemnifying Mr. Riddle and Mr. Peabody, 367 Speech in Favor of Custom-Houses at Buffalo and Os- wego, ... 311 Final Letter to his Constituents, 3*75 Letter to Frederick Douglass, 401 Letter to Hon. H. C. Goodwin, ...... 413 SPEECHES OF GERRIT SMITH. LETTER. To the Voters of the Counties of Oswego and Madison : You nominated me for a seat in Congress, notwith- standing I besought you not to do so. In vain was my resistance to your persevering and unrelenting pur- pose. I had reached old age. I had never held office. Nothing was more foreign to my expectations, and nothing was more foreign to my wishes, than the hold- ing of office. My multiphed and extensive affairs gave me full employment. My habits, all formed in private life, all shrank from pubhc life. My plans of useful- ness and happiness could be carried out only in the se- clusion, in which my years had been spent. My nomination, as I supposed it would, has resulted in my election — and, that too, by a very large major- ity. And, now, I wish, that I could resign the office, 10 LETTER. wMcli your partiality has accorded to me. But, I must not— I cannot. To resign it would be a most un- grateful and offensive requital of tlie rare generosity, wHcli broke tkrougli your strong attacbuents to party, and bestowed your votes on one, the peculiarities of whose political creed leave him without a party. Yery rare, indeed, is the generosity, which was not to be re- pelled by a political creed, among the pecuharities of which are 1st. That it acknowledges no law, and knows no law, for slavery : — that, not only, is slavery not in the Federal Constitution, hut that, hy no possibility, could it he brought either into the Federal, or into a State, Constitution. 2d. That the right to the soil is as natural, absolute, and equal, as the right to the light and the air. 3d. That political rights are not conventional, but na- tural — inhering in all persons, the black as well as the white, the female as well as the male. 4th. 27iat the doctrine of Free Trade is the necessary outgrowth of the doctrine of the human brotherhood : and that to impose restrictions on commerce is to build up un- natural and sinful barriers across that brotherhood. 5th. That national wars are as brutal, barbarous, and unnecessary, as are the violence and bloodshed, to which misguided and frenzied individuals are prompted : and that our country should, by her own Heaven-trusting and beautiful example, hasten the day, when the nations of the earth " shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their LETTER. 11 spears into pruning hooks : nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any moreP 6tli. That the province of Government is but to pro- tect — to protect persons and property ; and thai the build- ing of railroads and canals and the care of schools and churches fall entirely outside of its limits, and exclusively within the range of " the voluntary principle.^'' Narrow, however, as are these limits, every duty within them is to be promptly, faithfully, fully performed : — as well, for in- stance, the duty on the part of the Federal Government to put an end to the dramshop manufacture of paupers and madmen in the City of Washington, as the duty on the paH of the State Government to put an end to it in the State. 7tli. That, as far as practicable, every officer, from the highest to the lowest, including especially the President and Postmaster, should be eUcted directly by the people. I need not extend any furtlier tTie enumeration of tlie features of mj peculiar political creed : — and I need not enlarge upon the reason, which I gave, why I must not, and can not, resign the office, which you have con- ferred upon me. I will only add, that I accept it ; that my whole heart is moved to gratitude by your be- stowment of it ; and that, God helping me, I will so discharge its duties, as neither to dishonor myself, nor you. GEEKIT SMITH. Peterboro, November 5th, 1852. SPEECH ON THE REFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. DECEMBER 2 0, 185 3. Me. Houston, Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, having submitted Resolutions to distribute the President's Message among different Committees, Mr. Smith was the first person to obtain the floor. He spoke as follows : It is natural, Mr. Chairman — nay, it is almost neces- sary — ^that, from the difference in our temperament, our education, our pursuits, and our circumstances, we should take different views of many a subject, which comes before us. But, if we are only kind in express- ing these views, and patient in listening to them, no harm, but, on the contrary, great good, will come from our discussions. As this is the first time I have had the floor, it mviy 14 REFEEENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. be well for me now to confess, that I am in the habit of freely imputing errors to my fellow-men. Perhaps, I shall fall into tliis habit on the present occasion. It may be a bad habit. But is it not atoned for by the fact, that I do not claim, that I am myself exempt from errors ; that I acknowledge, that I abound in them ; and that I am ever willing, that those whom I assail, shall make reprisals? I trust. Sir, that so long as I shall have the honor to hold a seat in this body, I may be able to keep my spirit in a teachable posture, and to throw away my errors as fast as honorable gentlemen around me shall convince me of them. I have risen, Mr. Chairman, to make some remarks on that portion of the President's Message, which it was proposed, a few moments since, to refer to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The Message endorses, fully and warmly, the conduct of the Administration in the case of Martin Koszta. For my own part, I cannot bestow unqualified praise on that conduct. Scarcely upon Capt. Ingraham can I bestow such praise. It is true, that I honor him for his brave and just determination to rescue Koszta, but I would have had him go a step farther than he did, and insist on Koszta's absolute liberty. I would have had him enter into no treaty, and hold no terms, with kid- nappers. I would have had him leave nothing regard- ing Koszta's Liberty to the discretion of the French Consul or any other Consul : to the discretion of the REFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. 15 Frencli Government or any other Government. Kosz- ta was an American subject — a kidnapped American subject — and hence the American Government was bound to set him, immediately and unconditionally, free. But Capt. Ingraham represented the American Government. For that occasion he was the American Government. For saying what I have here said, I may appear very inconsistent in the eyes of many, who know my oppo- sition to all war ; for they may regard Capt. Ingraham as having been ready to wage war upon Austria — as having, indeed, actually threatened her with war. But, notwithstanding my opposition to all war, I defend Capt. Ingraham's purpose to use force, should force be- come necessary. I believe, that such purpose is in harmony with the true ofS.ce of Civil Government. I hold, that an armed national police is proper, and that here was a fit occasion for using it, had moral influ- ences failed. But to beheve in this is not to beheve in war. It is due to truth to add, that Capt. Ingraham should not be charged with designing war upon Austria. Why should he be thus charged ? He had, properly, nothing whatever to do with Austria, nor with the Austrian Con- sul. There was no occasion for his doing with either of them, nor for his even thinking of either of them. For him to have supposed that Austria, or any of her authorities, could be guilty of kidnapping, would have been to insult her and them. He had to do only with 10 KEFERP]NCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. the kidnappers, who were restraining Koszta of his liberty ; and all he had to do with these kidnappers was to compel them to an unconditional and immediate sur- render of their prey. I will say, by the way, that I do not condemn the conduct of our Minister, Mr. Marsh, in relation to Koszta, for the good reason, that I am not sure what it was. If it was, as it is reported to have been, I trust that both the Administration and the whole country will condemn it. It is denied in certain quarters, that Koszta was an American subject. But Secretary Marcy has argued triumphantly that, in the light of international law, he was. I regret, that he had not proceeded to argue it in other lights also. I regret, that he had not proceeded to show that, even if admitted international law is to the contrary, nevertheless, by the superior law of reason and justice, Koszta was an American subject. I regret, that he had not proceeded to publish to the world, that, when a foreigner becomes an inhabitant of this land ; abjures allegiance to the Government he has left ; and places himself under the protection of ours ; the Ameri- can Grovernment will protect him, and that, too, whether with or without international law, and whether with the world or against the world. In a word, I regret that the Secretary did not declare, that if international law shall not authorize the American Government to protect such a one, then American law shall. It i? REFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. 17 high tune, that America should justify herself in such a case by something more certain and authoritative than European codes. It is high time that she should base her justification, in such a case, on the immutable and everlasting principles of reason and justice. I may be asked, whether I would allow, that the subject of a foreign Government, who is alleged to be charged with an offence, and who has fled to our coun- try, can find shelter in his oath of allegiance to our Government ? I answer, that I would not allow him to be kidnapped ; and that, if his former Government wants him, it must make a respectful call on our Gov- ernment for his extradition. I add, that I would have our Government the sole judge of the fact whether he is charged with an offence; and also the sole judge whether the offence with which he may be charged is a crimen— a real and essential crime — ^for which he should be surrendered ; or a merely conventional and nominal crime, for which he should not be surrendered. A few words in regard to the charge, that Capt. In- * graham invaded the rights of a neutral State. It is to be regretted, that the Secretary did not positively and pointedly deny the truth of this charge. I admit, that no denial of it was needful to his argument with Mr. Hulsemann. The denial would, however, have been useful. Ko, Sir ; Capt. Ingraham did not violate the rights of Turkey. But, although America cannot be justly charged with violating the rights of Turkey, 18 REFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. Turkey nevertlieless can be justly cliarged with violat- ing the rights of America. She violated the rights of America, inasmuch as she failed to afford to Koszta the protection, which she owed him. If she is not fairly chargeable with permitting him to be kidnapped, she nevertheless is fairly chargeable with permitting him to remain kidnapped, and that is virtually the same thing. To say, that Capt. Ingraham violated the rights of Turkey, is nonsense. It is nonsense, if for no other reason, than that she had no rights in the case, to be violated. She had none, for the simple reason, that she suffered her laws to be silent. The only ground on which a neutral State can claim respect at the hands of belligerents is, that so far as she is concerned, their rights are protected. If she allows injustice to them, then they may do themselves justice. If she refuses to use the law for them, then they may take it into their own hands. For Turkey to suspend her laws, as she did in the present case, is to leave to herself no ground of wonder or complaint, if a brave Capt. Ingra- ham supplies her lack of laws. But I may be asked, whether I would really have had Capt. Ingraham fire into the Austrian ship ? I an- swer, that I would have had him set Koszta free, cost what it might. At the same time I admit, that there would have been blame, had it cost a single life ; and that this blame would have rested, not upon the Turks and Austrians only, but upon our own countrymen REFEEENCE OF THE PEESIDENt's MESSAGE. 19 also. This is so, for the reason, that neither our own country nor any other country is so fully identified with justice, in the eyes of all the world, as to make its character for justice an effectual substitute for violence — as to make, in a word, its character for justice, its suffi- cient power to obtain justice. "Were our country prover- bial, the world over, for wisdom and goodness — ^were our love to God and man known and read of all men — ^were every nation to know that, both, at home and abroad, our Government acts upon Christian principles — then no nation would wrong us, and no nation would let us be wronged. Then, if one of our people were kidnap- ped in a foreign land, as was Koszta, the Government of that land would promptly surrender him, at our request. It would pass upon our title to the individual confidingly and generously, rather than jealously and scrutinously. And even if it entertained much doubt of our title, it would nevertheless waive it, under the in- fluence of its conviction, that we ask nothing, which we do not honestly believe to be our due, and that our cha- racter is such, as richly to entitle us to all, that is possi- bly our due. Having such a character, our moral force would supersede the application of our physical force. Had physical force been needful to effect the deliverance of Koszta, it would have been needful merely because the American people and American Government lacked the moral character, or, in other words, the moral force, adequate to its deliverance. But, as I have already in- 20 KEFEEENCE OF THE PEESIDENT's MESSAGE. timated, our nation is no more deficient in this respect than other nations. I said, that I could not bestow unqualified praise on the Administration for its part in the Koszta affaii\ In one or two of those passages of rare rhetorical beauty in his letter to Mr. Hulsemann, Secretary Marcy insin- uates the despotic character of Anstria. Now, I will not say, that there was impudent hypocrisy in the in- sinuation ; but I will say, that the insinuation was in bad taste, and that it was bad policy. A cunning policy would studiously avoid, in our diplomatic correspond- ence, all allusions to desj)otism and oppression, lest such allusions might suggest to the reader comparisons between our conntry and other countries, that would be quite unfavorable to ns. I admit, that Austria is an oppressor. But is it not equally true, and far more glaringly true, that America is a much greater and guiltier oppressor? Indeed, compared with our despotism, which classes millions of men, women, and chikben, with cattle, Austrian des- potism is but as the little finger to the loins. Surely, surely, it will never be time for America to taunt Aus- tria with being an oppressor, until the influence of American example is such, as to shame Austria out of her oppression, rather than to justify and confirm her in it. In this same letter to the representative of Austria, Mr. Marcy presumes to quote, as one of the justtfi REFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. 21 cations of Capt. Ingraham's conduct, the Divine law, to do unto others as we would have others do unto us. Now, was it not the very acme of presumption for the American Government to quote this law, while it surpasses every other Government in tramphng it under foot ? Did Mr. Marcy suppose Mr. Hulsemann to be stone-blind? Did he suppose, that Mr. Hulsemann had lived in the city of Washington so long, and yet had seen nothing of the buying and selling of human beings as brutes, which is continually going on here, under the eye, and under the authority, of Govern- ment ? Did he suppose, that Mr. Hulsemann could be ignorant of the fact, that the American Government is the great slave-catcher for the American slave-holders ? Did he suppose him to be ignorant of the fact, that the great American slave-trade finds in the American Gov- ernment its great patron ; and that this trade is carried on, not only under the general protection, but under the specific regulations of Congress ? Did he suj)pose him to be ignorant of the fact, that many, both at the I^orth and South, (among whom is the President him- self,) claim, that American slavery is a national institu- tion ? — and made such by the American Constitution ? It is a national institution. If not made such by our organic law, it is, nevertheless, made such by the enact- ments of CongTcss, the decisions of the Judiciary, and the acquiescence of the American People. And did Mr. Marcy suppose Mr. Hulsemann to be entirely una,- 22 REFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. ware, tliat the present Administration surpasses all its predecessors in sliameless pledges and devotion to tlie Slave Power ? Certainly, Mr. Marcy fell into a great mistake, in presuming Mr. Hulsemann to be in total darkness on all these points. If, indeed, a mistake, it is a very ludicrous one. If but an affectation, it is too wicked to be ludicrous. I referred, a moment since, to some of the evidences of the nationality of American slavery. It, sometimes, suits the slaveholders to claim, that their Slavery is an exclusively State concern; and that the North has, therefore, nothing to do with it. But as well may you, when urging a man up-hill with a heavy load upon his back, and with your lash also upon his back, tell him, that he has nothing to do either with the load or the lash. The poor North has much to do with slavery. It staggers under its load and smarts under its lash. But I must do Secretary Marcy and the Administra,- tion justice. What I have said, were I to stop here, would convey the idea, that, in his letter to Mr. Hulse- mann, the Secretary inculcates the duty of uncondi- tional obedience to the law, which requires us to do unto others, as we would have others do unto us. He is, however, very far from doing so. He remembers, as with paternal solicitude, American slavery, and the Fugitive Slave Act, and provides for their safety. To this end he qualifies the commandment of Q-od, and makes it read, that we are to obey it, only when there REFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. 23 is no commandment of man to the contrary. In a word, he adopts the American theology — ^that pro-slavery theology, which makes human Government paramount to the Divine, and exalts the wisdom and authority of man above the wisdom and authority of Grod. I said, that I must do the Secretary justice : and I have now done it. But in doing it, a piece of flagrant injustice has been brought to light. For what less than flagrant can I call his injustice to the Bible ? The Secretary says, that this blessed volume " enjoins upon all men, every where, when not acting under legal restraint, to do unto others whatever they would that others should do unto them." Now, the phrase " when not acting under legal restraint" is a sheer interpolation. The command- ment, as we find it in the Bible, is without quahfication — ^is absolute. The Administration is guilty, therefore, through its Secretary, of deliberately corrupting the Bible. Moreover, it is guilty of dehberately corrupting this authentic and sacred record of Christianity at the most vital point. For this commandment to do unto others as we would have others do unto us, is the sum total of the requirements of Christianity. I say so on the authority of Jesus Christ himself For when He had given this commandment, He added : "for this is the law and the prophets." I am not unmindful how strong a temptation the Administration was under, in this instance, to corrupt the Bible. I am willing to make all due allowance on 24 REFEKENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. that accoimt. Strong, however, as was the tempta- tion, it nevertheless should have been resisted. I am well aware, that for the Administration to justify the rescue of Koszta on the unqualified, naked Bible ground, of doing unto others as we would have others do unto us, would be to throw open the door for the rescue of every fugitive slave. It would be to justify the rescue of Shadrach at Boston. It would be to jus- tify the celebrated rescue in my own neighborhood — I mean the rescue of Jerry at Syracuse. It would be to justify the bloody rescue at Christiana. For, not only is it true, that all men would be rescued from slavery, but it is also true, that very nearly all men would be rescued from slavery, even at the expense of blood. I add, that for the Administration to justify on naked Bible ground the rescue of Koszta, would be, in effect, to justify the deliverance of every slave. Now, for an Administration, that sold itself in advance to the Slave Power, and that is indebted for all its hopes and for its very beiag to that Power — for such an Administra- tion to take the position of simple Bible truth, and thereby invite the subversion of all slavery, would be to practise the cruellest ingTatitude. Such ingratitude could not fail to exasperate the Slave Power — that mighty and dominant Power, before which not only the Administrations of the American People, but the American People themselves, fall down as abjectly as did Nebuchadnezzar's people before the image, which REFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. 25 he had set up. Nevertheless, however important it may be to maintain slavery, it is far more important to maintain Christianity ; and the Administration is there- fore to be condemned for giving up Christianity for slavery. I add, that, if American slavery is, as the famous John Wesley called it, "the sum of all villa- nies," then it is certainly a very poor bargain to ex- change Christianity for it. Sir, this doctrine of the Administration, that himian enactments are paramount to Divine law, and that the Divine authority is not to be allowed to prevail against human authority, is a doctrine as perilous to man as it is dishonorable to God. In denying the supremacy of God, it annihilates the rights of man. I trust, that a better day will come, when all men shall be convinced, that hmnan rights are not to be secured by human cunning and human juggles, but solely by the unfal- tering acknowledgment of the Divine Power. This crazy world is intent on saving itself by dethroning God. But, in that better day, to which I have refer- red, the conviction shall be universal, that the only safety of man consists in leaving God upon His throne. To illustrate the absurdity of this atheistic doctrine of the Administration, we will suppose that, by a statute of Turkey, any person, Hungarian-born, ought to be kidnapped. Then, according to this atheistic doctrine, Capt. Ingraham had no right to rescue Koszta, 26 REFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENTS MESSAGE. for liis kidnappers, in that case, were acting " under legal restraint." Mr. SoLLERS, of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, what is the question before the House ? The Chairman, (Mr. Orr, of South Carolina.) Does the gentlemy,n from Maryland rise to a question of order ? Mr. SoLLERS. I do. The Chairman. What is the gentleman's ques- tion? Mr. SoLLERS. I want to know what is the sub- ject before the House. The Chairman. The subject is the reference oi the President's Message. Mr. SoLLERS. The gentleman from Kew-York is making an abolition speech, and I do not see its rele- vancy to the question before the House. The Chairman. The gentleman from Kew-York is entitled to the floor, and he is in order. Mr. Smith. The gentleman from Maryland says, that I am making an abolition speech. I am : and I hope he will be patient under it. I, in my turn, will be patient under an rm^'i-abolition speech. But I will proceed in my illustrations of the absurd- ity of this atheistic doctrine of the Administration. What, too, if there were a statute of Turkey, declaring REFERE2CCE OF THE PRESIDEIsT's MESSAGE. 27 it riglit to kidnap any person, wlio is American-born ? Then, according to this corrupt theology of the Admin- istration, T^e should not be at liberty to rescue an Ame- rican citizen, who might be kidnapped in Turkey. And what, too, if acting under human authority, or, in the language of the Administration, "under legal restraint," the people of one of the Barbary States "should kidnap Secretary Marcy, and even President Pierce himself — then, also, according to this God-de- throning doctrine of the Administration, our hands would be tied ; and we should have no right to reclaim these distinguished men. The supposition, that such distinguished men can be kidnapped, is not absurd. The great Cervantes was a slave in one of the Barbary States. So, too, was the great Arago. And it is not beyond the pale of possibility, that even the great Secretary and the great President may yet be slaves. I am aware, that they, who stand up so stoutly for slavery, and for the multiplication of its victims, dream not, that they themselves can ever be its victims. They dream not, that this chalice, which they put to the lips of others, can ever be returned to their own. And, yet, even this terrible retribution, or one still more terrible than any, which this life can afford, may bo the retribution of such stupendous treachery and en- mity to the human brotherhood. Little did Napoleon think, when, with perfidy unutterable, he had the noble 28 KEFEEENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. but ill-fated Toussaint L'Ouverture carried across the waters, to perish in a prison, "That he himself, then greatest among men, Should, in like manner, be so soon conveyed Athwart the deep."* to perish, also, in a prison. In that great day (for which, as it has been sublime- ly said, all other days were made) when every man shall "receive the things done in his body," let me not be found of the number of those, who have wielded civil ofhce to bmd and multijDly the victims of oppres- sion. When I witness the tendency of power in human hands, be it civil or ecclesiastical, or any other power, to such perversion, I shrink from possessing it, lest I, too, might be tempted to lend it to the op- pressor instead of the oppressed. "So I returned," says the wise man, "and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun ; and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter : and on the side of their oppressors there was power ; but they had no comforter." I proceed to say, that this detestable doctrine of the Administration goes to blot all over that page of histo- ry, of which Americans are so proud. I mean that page, which records the famous achievement of Decatur and his brave companions in the Mediterranean. For * Ro.;?ors's Italy. EEFERENCE OF THE PEESIDENT's MESSAGE. 29 it must be remembered, tliat the Algerine slaveholders, who were so severely chastised, and that, too, notwith- standmg, being the most ignorant, thej were the least guilty class of slaveholders — I say, it must bq remem- bered, that these Algerine slaveholders acted under human Grovernment, or, in the words of the Adminis- tration, " under legal restraint ;" and were, therefore, according to the wisdom of the Administration, released from all obhgation to do unto others, as they would have others do unto them ; and were at entire hberty to enslave Americans as well as other people. I add, that this blasphemous doctrine of the Admin- istration leaves unjustified, and utterly condemns, every war, which this nation has waged ; for every such war has been against a people acting under the authority of their Grovernment, or, in the language of the Adminis- tration, ''under legal restraint." What if our enemy, in fighting against us, was guilty of fighting against God ? — was guilty of trampling under foot the Di^dne law? Nevertheless, according to the sage teachings of the Administration, his guilt was overlaid with inno- cence, from the &ct, that he was "acting under legal restraint." Surely, it will not be pretended, that our transgressions of the Divine law are excused by our "legal restraint," and that the like trangressions, on the part of others, cannot be excused by the like cause. Surely if we may put in the plea of " legal restraint" against Divine laws, so may others. 80 EEFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. Alas, what a disgusting spectacle does tlie Adminis- tration present, in its deliberate corruption of the Bible, for the guilty piu'pose of sparing so abominable and vile a thing as slavery ! Alas, what a pitiable specta- cle of self-degradation does this nation present, in choosing such an Administration, and in remaining patient under it! And how rank, and broad, and glaring, is the hypocrisy upon the brow of this nation, who, whilst her feet are planted on the millions she has doomed to the horrors, and agonies, and pollutions of slavery, holds, nevertheless, in one hand, that pre- cious. Heaven-sent volume, which declares, that God "hath made of one blood* all nations of men, for to dwell on all the face of the earth ;" and in the other, that emphatically American paper, which declares, that " all men are created equal !" And how greatly is the guilt of this nation, in her matchless oppressions, ag- gravated by the fact, that she owes infinitely more than ever did any other nation to Christianity, and liberty, and knowledge ; and that she is, therefore, under infi- nitely greater obligation than was ever any other nation, to set an example, blessed in all its influences, both at. home and abroad! Other nations began their exist- ence in unfavorable circumstances. They laid their foundations in despotism, and ignorance, and supersti- tion. But Christianity, and liberty, and knowledge, waited upon the birth of this nation, and breathed into it the breath of life. REFEREKCE OF THE PEESIDENT's MESSAGE. 31 My liour is nearly up, and I will bring my remarks to a close. Affcer all, the Administration lias done us good service, in attempting to qualify the Divine com- mand, to do unto others as we would have others do unto us ; for, in attempting to do this for the sake of saving slavery, it has, by irresistible implication, ad- mitted that the command itself requires us to " let the oppressed go free." This precious law of Grod contains, as they are wont to insist, ample authority for all the demands of the abolitionists — that despised class of men, to which T am always ready to declare, that I belong. Hence, the Administration, in quoting this law as the great rule of conduct between men, has, in no unimportant sense, joined the abolitionists. I say it has quoted this law — this naked law. I say so, not because I forget the words with which it attempted to qualify the law, but because, inasmuch as the law, which God has made ab- solute, man cannot qualify, these qualifying words fall to the ground, and leave the naked law in all its force. I admit, that the Administration did not quote this law for the sake of manifesting its union with the abolition- ists ; for, yet a wlule at least, it expects more advan- tage from its actual union with the slaveholders than it could expect from any possible union with the aboli- tionists. No ; the Administration quoted this law for the sake of serving a purpose against Austria ; and it flattered itself that, by means of a few qualifying words, 32 EEFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. it could shelter slavery firom the force of the quotation. But, in this, it fell into a great mistake. Its greater mistake, however, was in presuming to quote the Bible at all. The Administration should have been aware that the Bible is a holy weapon, and is therefore fitted to anti-slavery, instead of pro-slavery, hands. It should have been aware, that it is more dangerous for pro- slavery men to undertake to wield this weapon, than it is for children to play with edge tools. The Bible can never be used in behalf of a bad cause, without detri- ment to such cause. I conclude, Mr. Chairman, by expressing the hope, that this egregious blunder of the Administration, in calhng the Bible to its help — a blunder, by the way, both as ludicrous and wicked as it is egTcgious — ^will, now that the blunder is exposed, be not without its good effect, in the way of admonition. I trust, that this pro-slavery Administration, and, indeed, all pro- slavery parties and pro-slavery persons, will be effectu- ally admonished by this blunder to let the Bible en- tirely alone, until they shall have some better cause than slavery to serve by it. ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF MR. WRIGHT OF PENNSYLYANIA. DECEMBEE 22, 1853. In tlie course of liis reply to the speecli of Mr. Smith, made two days previous, Mr. Wright put a question to Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith, of ISTew-York. Will the gentleman yield me the floor to reply to his question ? Mr. Weight. Does the gentleman desire to make a speech ? Mr. Smith. I rose, not because I wish to reply to the gentleman's question, for I do not wish to reply to it. But, as he put the question to me, and might deem me uncivil were I not to reply to it, I am willing to reply to it ; and I trust that the gentleman will feel no better after my reply. Mr. Weight. After having called the gentleman out, I cannot refuse him the floor. o* 34 ANSWER TO THE QUESTIOX OF MR. WRIGHT. Mr. Smith. Tlie gentleman lias referred me to that clause of tlie Constitution wMcii respects fugitives from service; and it is on this clause that his question is based. Now, not to consume the time of the gentleman with any other reason for my denying that the word "service" in the Constitution refers to slavery, I will only advert to the fact, that three days previous to the close of the Convention which framed the Constitution, the committee on style made their report ; and that then it was moved to strike out the word " servitude," and to supply its place with the word " service." This sub- stitution was made by a unanimous vote, and for the avowed reason that " servitude" denotes the condition of slaves, and "service" the condition of freemen. I hold, therefore, that the word "service" in the Consti- tution refers to freemen, and to freemen only. To hold that the framers of the Constitution did, after the sub- stitution I have referred to, mean that the word should refer to slavery, would be to stigmatize them with hypocrisy. I add that the facts I have here given, may be found in the Madison Popers. Mr. Wright. That is not my recollection of the historical proceedings of that convention which formed the Constitution. Mr. Smitil I refer the gentleman to the Madison Papers. SPEECH ON THE RESOLUTIONS OF THANKS TO CAPT. INGKAHAM. JANUAET 5, 185 4. Peehaps, Mr. Speaker, I sliould not liave presumed to rise, liad I been duly influenced by what the gentle- man from Alabama has just now told us of the charac- teristics of a statesman. For, in that gentleman's esteem, the heart does not enter into the composition of a st9,tes- man. With him, the statesman is a creature all head, and no heart. With me, on the contrary, the heart is of more account than the head — and that, too, in all the possible circumsfances of life, including even the province of statesmanship. A higher authority than the gentleman from Alabama makes more of the heart than of the head. His command, as well upon the statesman as upon every other person, is, " My son, give me thine heart." The heart first, and the head afterwards. The faculties of man drive on but to mis- 36 THANKS TO CAPTAIN INGEAHAM. cMef and riiin, unless the heart be first given to the right and the true. I find, that gentlemen of Alabama agree in their defi- nition of a statesman. Another gentleman from that State, [Mr. Phillips,] when reviewing my speech, a fortnight ago, kindly informed me that I am but a sen- timentahst, and not a statesman. To use almost pre- cisely his words : "Though I had attained some noto- riety in the country as a sentimentalist, I had never risen to the dignity of a statesman." I beg that gentleman to be patient with me. I may yet become the dignified, heartless, frigid, conventional sort of being, that makes up the accepted and current idea of a statesman. Thej^ say, that Congress is a capital place for making a statesman of one, who is willing to come under the process. They say so, for the reason that Congress is a capital place for getting rid of all senti- ment, and sympathy, and conscience. Now, I cannot gay that I am very ambitious to have reahzed, in my own person, the popular idea of a statesman. JSTever- theless, I beg the gentleman to be patient with me. When I shall have been in Congress a few weeks longer, I may so far have lost my heart, and killed my soul, as to be a candidate for the honors of a statesman. And then the honorable gentleman will, no doubt, be willing to take me by his own right hand, and install me into that dignity which he and other statesmen so self-complacently enjoy. THANKS TO CAPTAIN INGKAHAM. 37 But to come to tlie resolutions. I like them exceed- ingly; and I should rejoice to see them pass unani- mously. I like them especially because they avoid all questions of nationahty and citizenship ; and leave the justification of Capt. Ingraham to rest on the naked ground of humanity. I was much pleased to find the distinguished gentlemen fi:om Virginia and South Caro- lina, [Mr. Bayly and Mr. Orr,] defending the resolutions in this fight. Delighted was I, when I heard the gen- tleman fi:om South Carofina [Mr. Orr] declare, in such impassioned language, that humanity is, of itself, ample justification for Captain Ingraham's conduct. Capt. Ingraham, according -to the impfication of the resolutions, and according to these gentlemen's inter- pretation and defence of the resolutions, obeyed the simple law of humanity — that law, against which, to use Bible language, "there is no law." Not only is it paramount law, but against it there can be no law. Capt. Ingraham recognized no law for kidnapping and oppressing his feUow man. He befieved that law is for the protection of rights, and he would not acknowledge as law what was for the destruction of rights; and, therefore, without pausing to inquire into any enact- ments of Turkey or Austria, he generously and nobly surrendered himself to the commands of the law of humanity, and defivered Koszta. Capt. Ingraham saw in Koszta a man — a kidnapped and oppressed man — and, therefore, he determined to 88 THANKS TO CAPTAIN INGE AH AM. • set Mm free. The manhood of Koszta was all tho ■warrant that Captain Ingraham needed to demand the liberty of Koszta. Captain Ingraham's sympathies arc not bounded by State or National lines. They are not controlled by questions of nationality and citizenship ; but where he sees his brother kidnapped or outraged, thither does he let his sympathies go out effectively for the deliverance of such brother. I was glad, Sir, to hear the gentleman from Pennsyl- vania, [Mr. Chandler,] in the course of his eloquent speech, quote the maxim " Bis dat qui cito dat^'' (he gives twice who gives quick,) to incite us to the prompt passage of the resolutions. "Well does Captain Ingra- ham deserve the benefit of this apposite and happy quotation, for he acted bravely and beautifully under the inspiration, if not of another Latin maxim, never- theless of the sentiment of another Latin maxim : " Nil humani a me alienum,''^ (nothing that concerns man is foreign to me.) Yes, Captain Ingraham honored this sublime maxim, which was coined by a slave ; for Terence, its high-souled author, was a Eoman slave. Pass these resolutions, Mr. Speaker — pass them promptly and unanimously. By doing so we shall honor humanity and honor ourselves ; by doing so we shall rebuke our Government for having taken, three years ago, the diabolical position, that they who rescue their kidnapped, and oppressed, and outraged, and crushed brethren, merit, at the hands of this Govern- THANKS TO CAPTAIN INGRAHAM. 39 ment, fines and imprisonment. Pass tliese resolutions, and jon will put the seal of yonr emphatic condemna- tion on that diabolical position ; and you will cheer the hearts of those who have rescued such poor brethren, ^nd of others who are determined to rescue them when- ever they can get the opportunity to do so. Pass these resolutions ; and these past and these future rescuers of the most wronged of all men will rejoice in knowing, that upon the principle of these resolutions, and upon the principle by which some on this floor have advo- cated them, they are entitled, not to suffer fines and imprisonment, but to receive gold medals. RESOLUTIONS ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. JANUARY 16, 1854. t Mr. Smith, of New- York. I beg leave to offer the following resolutions. Tlie Clerk read tlie resolutions, as follows : Whereas, all tke members of tlie human family, not- withstanding all contrary enactments and arrangements, have at all times, and in all circumstances, as equal a right to the soil as to the light and air, because as equal a natural need of the one as of the other ; And where- as, this invariably equal right to the soil leaves no room to buy, or sell, or give it away ; Therefore, 1. Resolved, That no bill or proposition should find any favor with Congress, which implies the right of Congress to dispose of the public lands or any part of them, either by sale or gift. 42 RESOLUTIONS OX THE PUBLIC LAITDS. 2. Resolved^ That the datj of civil government in regard to public lands, and indeed to all lands, is bnt to regulate the occupation of them ; and that this regu- lation should ever proceed upon the principle that the right of all persons to the soil — to the great source of human subsistence — is as equal, as inherent, and as sacred, as the right to life itself. 3. Resolved^ That Grovernment will have done but little toward securing the equal right to land, until it shall have made essential to the validity of every claim to land both the fact that it is actually possessed, and the fact that it does not exceed in quantity the maxi- mum which it is the duty of Grovernment to prescribe. 4. Resolved^ That it is not because land monopoly is the most efficient cause of inordinate and tyrannical riches on the one hand, and of dependent and abject poverty on the other ; and that it is not because it is, therefore, the most efficient cause of tliat inequality of condition so well-nigh fatal to the spread of democracy and Christianity, that Government is called upon to abolish it ; but it is because the right which this mighty agent of evil violates and tramples under foot is among those clear, certain, essential, natural rights which it is the province of Government to protect at all hazards, and irrespective of all consequences. Mr. HiBBARD. I move that the resolutions be laid upon the table. EESOLUTIOKS ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 43 Mr. GriDDiNGS. I call for the yeas and nays on that motion. The yeas and nays were not ordered. The question was then pnt on the motion to lay the resolutions on the table, and it was agreed to. SPEECH N WAR. JANUARY IS, 1S54. Me. Houstoit, of Alabama. I now call up tlie bills, wMcli were reported from the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union, with a recommendation, that they do pass, and which were under consideration when the House adjourned, last evening. The House then took up "the bill making appro- priation for the support of the Military Academy for the year ending June 30, 1855. Mr. Smith. I propose, Mr. Speaker, to make some remarks on this bill. Mr. Jones, of Tennessee. I think that the previous question was called on the bill, last evening. Mr. Smith. I think not. Mr. Clingman, of Korth-Carolina. If the previous question was called, I object to the gentleman's pro- ceeding to make any remarks. 46 SPEECH ON WAR. Mr. Speaker. The Clerk informed the Chair, that the previous question was not called, last evening. Mr. Jones. It was mj impression, that it was called. Mr. Smith. I believe, Sir, in the progress of the human race. I delight to dwell upon the idea of an ever-growing civilization. Hence it is, that I am afflicted at every demonstration of the vfar spnit. For the spirit of war, is the spirit of barbarism ; and, notwithstanding the general impression to the contrary, war is the mightiest of all the hindrances to the progress of civilization. But the spirit of this bill is the dark, barbarous, baleful spuit of war ; and, therefore, would I use all honorable means to defeat the bill. It is strange — it is sad — that, in a nation, professing faith in the Prince of Peace, the war spirit should be so rampant. That, in such a nation, there should be any manifestation whatever of this spirit, is gTOssly in- consistent. " My voice is still for war," are words ascribed to a celebrated Eoman. But as he was a pagan, and lived more than two thousand years ago, it is not strange, that he was for war. But, that we, who have a more than two thousand years' longer retrospect of the hor- rors of war than he had — that we, who, instead of but a pagan sense of right and wrong, have, or, at least. SPEECH O^^" WAR. 4:7 have tlie means of ha-v-ino- a Christian sense of riolit and wrong — that we should be for war, is, indeed, pass- ing strange. How vast, incomprehensibly vast, the loss of life by war I There are various estimates of this loss. Mr. Ore, of Soutli-Carolina. I rise to a question of order. Mr. Smith. I mean to keep myself strictly in or- der. Mr. Speaker. The gentleman will state Ms ques- tion of order. Mr. Ore. I understand, that the bill on which the gentleman from New- York [Mr. Smith] is submitting his remarks, is a bill making an appropriation to sup- port the Military Academy. I submit that the rule of the House requires, that the gentleman shall confine himself to the subject-matter before the House. The gentleman has not been confining himself tt) the sub- ject-matter, and I require the Speaker to decide be- tween us. Mr. Smith. If the gentleman denies, that the Mili- tary Academy has to do with war, then I appeal to the Speaker what would become of the Military Academy, were war to be abandoned ? Mr. Speaker. The Chair understands, that the gentleman from New- York [Mr. Smith] is opposing the appropriation of money for the maintenance of the 48 SPEECH ON WAR. Military Academy, on the ground, that war is to be condemned. Mr. S^^iiTH. Certainly, Sir ; and, therefore, beyond all doubt, I am in order. The Speaker. The Chair is of opinion, that the gentleman from New- York is in order. Mr. Smith. I presumed, that the Speaker would so decide. I was saying. Sir, when interrupted by the gentle- man from South-Carolina, [Mr. Orr,] that there are various estimates of the loss of life by war, Burke's estimate, if my recollection is right, is, that thirty-five thousand millions of persons have perished by war; that is, some thirty-five times as many as the whole present population of the earth. In Bible language : " Who slevf all these ?" War slew them. And, when contemplating this vast slaughter, how natural to in- quire, in other words of that blessed book, " Shall the sword devour for ever ?" And how immense the loss of property by war! The annual cost of the war system to Europe alone, in- cluding interest on her war debt, exceeds a thousand millions of dollars. The Government of our own nation has expended, on account of the army and fortifications, more than five hundred millions of dollars ; and, on ac- count of the navy and its operations, more than half that sum. But to ascertain the whole loss of property, which this nation has suffered by war, we must take SPEECH ON WAR. 49 into the reckoning many other items ; and, especially, the cost of the mihtia. ISTow, this last item, not accord- ing to mere conjecture, but according to the computa- tion of those capable of making it, is fifteen hundred millions of dollars. Add, then, to what our nation has paid for war, and to her loss of property by war, the interest on these payments and losses, and you have an aggregate equalhng a large share of the whole present wealth of the nation. And, just here. Sir, I would say a few words on na- tional debts. As such debts are, in the main, war debts, there can be no assignable limit to their accumu- lation, so long as war is thought to be necessary — for, so long, there will be wars — and, until war is abandon- ed, it will be held to be unjust and dishonorable to re- pudiate war debts, no matter how crushing, and increas- ingly crushing, from age to age, may be the burden of such debts. So commanding is the influence of war, and so world-wide and mighty the sentiment, which it has been able to create in favor of itself, that no debts are deemed more sacred and obligatory than war debts. And yet, so far from such debts being, in truth, sacred and obligatory, there is the most urgent and imperative duty to repudiate them. ISTo doctrine should be more indignantly scouted than the doctrine, that one genera- tion may anticipate and waste the earnings and wealth of another generation. Nothing is plainer than that the gTcat impartial Father of us all would have every generation enter upon its course, unmortgaged and 3 50 SPEECH ON WAE. unloaded by prior generations. Nothing is plainer than that in those States of Europe, where the war debt is so great, that the very life-blood of the masses must be squeezed out to pay the annual interest upon it, re- pudiation must take place, ere those masses can rise into even a tolerable existence. It is a very common remark, at the present time, that Europe needs a revo- lution. She does need a revolution. But she needs repudiation more. However, there never will be a de- cided and wholesome revolution in Europe, that does not involve repudiation. If a people, on whom the wars and crimes of past generations have entailed an overwhelming burden of debt, shall achieve a revolu- tion, of which repudiation is not a part, their labor and sacrifice will be lost — their revolution will be spurious and vain. To say, that the people of England and Hol- land, where the war debt is so great, as to make the average share of each one of them, both children and adults, between two and three hundred dollars — Mr. Ore, (interrupting.) I rise to a question of order, I desire to know whether the point, which the gentle- man is now making, about the debts of England and Holland, is in order. Several Members. " Certainly !" " Certainly !" Mr. Smith. I am insisting, that, where war is car- ried on, there will be war debts ; and that where there are war debts, there will be the temptation, (and a tempt- ation, which should be yielded to,) to repudiate them. SPEECH OX WAR. 61 The Speaker. The bill before the House is to meet the expenses of the West Point Mihtarj Academj, The gentleman from New- York is disposed to strangle, if I may use the expression, the supplies for that pur- pose. The bill brings up the whole character of the thing, as connected with war matters. The Chair de- cides, that the gentleman's remarks are in order. Mr. Smith, (resuming.) I was about to say, when interrupted, that it is absurd to claim, that the people of England and Holland are morally bound to continue to dig from the earth, and to produce by other forms of toil, the means for paying the interest on their enor- mous war debt. They are morally bound to refuse to pay both interest and principal. They are morally bound to break loose from this load, and drag it no longer. For, so long as they drag it, they cannot exercise the rights of manhood, nor enjoy the blessings, nor fulfill the high purposes, of human existence. Is it said, that the G-ov- ernment, for whose wars they are now paying, would have been overthrown, but for these wars ? I answer, that the Grovernment, which involved its subjects in those wars, was the greatest curse of those subjects, and is the greatest curse of their successors. The main- tenance of such a Government is loss. Its overthrow is gain. I do not deny, that the case is possible, in which a generation would be morally bound to assume the debt created by its predecessor. But, even then, such gene- 52 SPEECH ON WAR. ration should be the sole judge of its obligation to as snme the debt. Were the cholera raging over the whole length and breadth of oiir land, and sweeping off mil- lions of OUT people ; and were a foreign nation to min- ister to our relief by lending us money ; if we could not repay the loan, our successors should : and such a loan they would be glad to repay. I would incidentally remark, that Civil Government will be neither honest nor frugal, so long as the practice of war is continued. I say so for the reason, that the extensive means necessary to carry on wars, or pay war debts, cannot be obtained by direct taxation. The peo- ple will consent to their being obtained only by indi- rect taxation : and no Grovemment ever was, or ever will be, either honest or frugal, whose expenses are de- frayed by indu-ect taxation, for no Government, whose expenses are thus defrayed, ever was or ever will be, held to a strict responsibihty by the people ; and no Government, not held to such responsibility, ever was, or ever will be, either honest or frugal. I have referred to the loss of life and property by war — of life, that is so precious — of property, that is so indispensable to the enjoyment and usefulness of life. But there is an unspeakably greater loss than this, with which war is also chargeable. I refer to the damage, which morals and religion suffer from it. All I need add, on this point, is, that the power of war to demo- ralize the world, and to corrupt the purest rehgion in SPEECH ON WAE. 53 the world, is abundantly manifest in the fact, that the moral and rehgious sense of even good men is not shocked by war. 'No stronger argument can be brought against war than the fact of its power to conform the morals and religion of the world to war. It would, perhaps, be "wrong to ascribe the continu- ance of war to the low and perverted state of the moral and religious sense. It would, perhaps, be more proper to ascribe it to the prevailing delusion, that war is una- voidable. And, yet, it may be, that a better state of the moral and rehgious sense would have entirely pre- vented this delusion. But, however this delusion may be accounted for, or whatever may be responsible for it, it is consoling to know, that it is not so well nigh impossible to dispel it, as is generally supposed. A fresh baptism of wisdom and goodness may, perhaps, be needed to that end : but no new faculties, and not a new birth. Nay, were we to apply to the subject of war no more than our present stock of good sense and good feeling — no more than our mental and moral faculties, as they now are — it is probable, that war could not long withstand the apphcation. The doctrine, that war is a necessity, is the greatest of all libels on man. The confidence, which, in private life, we manifest in each other, proves, that it is such a libel. "We walk the streets unarmed. We go to bed without fear, and with unlocked doors ; and we thus prove, that we regard our fellow-men as our friends, and not our foes — as disposed to protect, and not to harm 54 SPEECH ON WAR. US. It is true, that there is, here and there, one, that would rob us ; and, at very far wider intervals, one, that would kill us. But we are at rest in the con- sciousness, that, where there is one to assail us, there are a hundred to defend us. Indeed, society could not be held together, were it not true, that the generality of men are swayed by love, and confidence, and generos- ity, existing either in their own hearts, or accorded by them to others. The men, who are SAvayed by distrust and hatred, constitute the exceptional cases. Have I, then, an evil-minded neighbor? I, never- theless, need not fight with him. I may rely, under God, upon the mass of my neighbors to protect me against him. So, too, if there is, here and there, a mali- cious American, and, here and there, a malicious Englishman, who would be guilty of involving their countries in a war with each other; nevertheless, the mass of Americans and Englishmen, inasmuch as they prefer international amity to international quar- rels, should be relied on to preserve peace : and they would preserve it, if so relied on. Now, it is in this point of view, that the nation, which is determined to keep out of war, Tvdll never find itself involved in war • and that nothing is hazarded by adopting the peace policy. I add, that, as it is not in human nature, under its ordinary influences, and in its ordinary circumstances to fall upon an unarmed and unresisting man, so the nation, which puts its trust, not in weapons of war, but in the fraternal affections of the himnan heart, and in SPEECH ON WAR. 66 the God, who planted those affections there, will find this trust an effectual shield from the horrors of war. Such a shield did the good men, who founded Pennsyl- vania, find this trust. During the seventy years of this trust, there was no blood shed in their Province. These good men subdued even the savage heart, simply by trusting that heart. These good men, by refusing to carry deadly weapons themselves, shamed even savages out of carrying them. And were -America, now, to dis- arm herself, even to the extent of abandoning the policy and practice of war, and were she to cast herself for pro- tection on the world's heart, she would find that heart worthy of being so trusted. The other nations of the earth would not only be ashamed to take advantage of her disarmament, but they would love their confiding sister too well to do so. ISTay, more. Instead of mak- ing her exposed condition an occasion for their malevo- lence, they would be moved to reciprocate the confi- dence expressed by that condition, and to disarm them- selves. I have already admitted, that there are persons, who would wrong us — who would even plunder and kill us. I now admit, that Grovernment is bound to provide against them. If, on the one hand, I protest against stamping the masses with the desperate character of these rare individuals, on the other, I admit, that we are to guard against these rare individuals. But to argue, that, because of the existence of these rare indi- viduals in France, or England, or any other nation, 66 SPEECH ON WAR. the nation itself is necessarily disposed to make war upon us, is to make tlie exceptions to tlie rule, instead of tke rule itself, tke basis of tke argument. Whilst, for tlie reason, that I believe, tliat there is no need of Y\^ar, I believe there is no need of making preparation against it, I, nevertheless, admit, that there is need of Government, of prisons, and of an armed police. Whilst I hold, that a nation whose Govern- ment is just in all its dealings with its own subjects, and with foreigners, and which so far confides in, and honors, human nature, as to trust, that even nations are capable of the reciprocations of justice — ay, and the reciprocations of love, also — I say, whilst I hold, that such a nation needs to make no provision against war, I still admit, that it is bound, in common with every other nation, to have ever in readiness, both on sea and land, a considerable armed force, to be wielded, as occasions may require, against the hostes humani generis — the enemies of the human race — the pirates, that, both on land and sea, " lurk privily for the inno- cent prey." But what shall be the character — the intellectual and moral character — of the men proper to compose this armed force ? No other question in this discussion is so imj)ortant ; and, perhaps, in the whole range of earthly interests, there is not a more important ques- tion. The answer, which I shall give to this question, is a very novel one ; so novel, indeed, that, were I not SPEECH ON WAE. 67 irresistibly impressed witli its trutli and value, I should not venture to give it. The punishment of its own offending citizens is, con- fessedly, regarded as being, in all its stages, a most solemn and responsible duty. Laws to this end are enacted with considerateness and solemnity. It is claimed, that none but vfise and just men are fit to en- act them. Judges and jurors are considerate and sol- emn in applying the laws ; and none, but the upright and intelligent, are allowed to be suitable persons for judges and jurors. All this is indispensable to main- tain the moral influence and the majesty of the laws. But how fatally would this majesty be dishonored, and this moral influence be broken, if all this propriety and all this consistency were, then, to be followed up with the gross impropriety and gross inconsistency of com- mitting the execution of the verdict, or decree, of the court-room to the hands of the profligate and base. Most clear is it, that the turnkey and hangman should not fall below the lawmaker or judge, in dignity and excellence of character. I am aware, that it was once thought, that the vilest man in the community was the most appropriate man for hangman. But sounder thinking requires, that the hangman, if there must be a hangman, should be one of the noblest and holiest of men. Such is my argument— and, I trust, it is a conclusive one — in favor of a solemn and dignified execution of 58 SPEECH ON WAE. the laws of Government against its offending subjects. But cannot a similar, and a no less conclusive, argu- ment be made in favor of such an execution of its laws against foreign offenders, also ? Most certainly. It is admitted, that the greatest wisdom and considerateness are necessary in deciding on so solemn a measure as war. But, just here, the amazing impropriety, the fatal inconsistency, occurs, of intrusting the execution of the declaration of war to those, who are, for the most part, profligate and base — the very scum and re- fuse of society. ISTot only so, but it is insisted, and that, too, by good men, and by the friends of peace, that the profligate and base are the peculiarly fit per- sons to fill up the ranks of the armies — the peculiarly fit persons to be "food for powder." They believe with Napoleon, that "the worse the man, the better the soldier;" and with Wellington, that "the men, who have nice scruples about religion, have no business to be soldiers." A sad mistake, however, is this, on the part of the good men I have referred to. They should insist, that none but the virtuous and intelli- gent are fit to be armed men. Peace men are wont to complain, that war is too much honored. But if there must be war, it should be far more honored than it is ; and, to have it so, none but the intelligent and virtuous are to be thought worthy of fighting its battles. Of such persons, and of such only, would I have the na- tional pohce consist : that police, which is the fit and SPEECH ON WAR. 59 needed substitute for war-armies and war-navies. Sure- ly, they, wlio man the vessel, that is to go forth against the pirates of the ocean, and the}', Vv'ho take up aims to vindicate defied justice on the land, should be men of virtue, and not vice — intelligent, and not ignorant. The wicked and the vile will not fail to justify their wickedness, if it is the wicked and the vile, who under- take their punishment. But if wisdom and virtue are arrayed against them, there is hope, that they may be awed, or shamed, out of their wickedness. The armed forces of the world are looked upon as a mere brute power. Composed, as I would have them composed, there would still be an ample amount of brute "power in them; but there would, also, be in them the far more important element of moral power. I say far more ijnportant ; for disturbers of the peace, and transgressors of the laws, would be far more con- trolled by the presence of the moral than the presence of the brute power. Indeed, the brute power itself would then be viewed very differently from what it now is. Now, it kindles the wrath, and, oftentimes, the contempt of those against whom it is arrayed. But, then, commended, honored, sanctified by the moral in- fluence, with which it would stand associated, it would be respected, and submitted to, by many, who, but for that association, would despise and resist it. That men of conscience and virtue are respected and feared by their enemies; and that their conscience and virtue make their hearts none the less courageous and their 60 SPEECH ON WAK. arms none the less strong; was. well illustrated bj Cromwell's never-defeated armies. With my conceptions of the character proper for those, who are to compose the armed police of a nation, it is not strange, that I, too, would be in favor of mili- tary and naval schools ; and that I would have them far more numerously attended than such schools now are. But the military and naval schools, that I vfould be in favor of, would not be an appendage of the war system. They would not look to the possibility of war : and, of course, they would not train theu^ pupils for war. ISTevertheless, they would train them for the most effective service against the enemies of the human race ; and to this end they would impart the highest scientific, literary, and moral education. I said, that I would have none, but the virtuous and intelligent, for the armed men of the nation. They should be gentlemen : and, all the better, if Christians and scholars also. They should be among the most honored of men— both from their high office, as con- servators of the public safety, and from their intrinsic merits. But, alas, what a contrast between such men and the vast majority of those, who compose the ar- mies of the world ! To that vast majority Government gives out grog, as swill is given out to hogs. From the backs of that vast majority many statesmen are re- luctant to hold back the lash. Of course, I refer not to mere "sentimentalists," but to those intellectual per- sons, who, in the esteem of the gentleman of Alabama, SPEECH ON WAR. 61 are alone capable of rising " into the dignity of states- men." We, often, hear it said, that the policeman of London is a gentleman. He should be. But if he, who is charged with the preservation of the peace, and safety, and order of a city, needs to be a gentleman, how much more should he be a gentleman, whose ofS.ce is to care, in this wise, for a nation and for the world ! But, it will be said, that men of the elevated charac- ter with which I would fill up our armed forces, would not be content with the present wages of the common sailor and common soldier. It is true, that they would not; and, that they should not. Thek wages should be several times greater. But, it must be remembered, on the other hand, that one of such men would be worth fifty of the present kind of armed men for pre- serving the world's peace. Nay, the armed men of the world are of a kind continually to hazard the peace of the world. I said, that there is no need of preparing against war. I add, that preparation against war provokes to it, instead of preventing it. K England makes it, then is France provoked to a counter preparation. And, what is not less, but much more, each nation, having made such preparation, is tempted to use it. If these nations line their respective coasts with cannon, it is but natural, that they should long to try the efficiency of their cannon on each other's ships. " To what pur- pose is all this waste ?" will be the reproachful inquiry, 62 SPEECH ON WAR, which thej will jDut to themselves, whilst they suffer this vastly expensive preparation to lie idle. If the maxim : "To prepare for Vv^ar is to prevent war," were ever true, it must have been in those remote ages, when such preparation cost but little time and money. It, certainly, is not true, when much time and scores of miUions are expended in such preparation. But, to return to the bill. I would, that it might be defeated ; and that the bill for building vessels-of-war miofht be defeated ; and that the President's recommen- dations for increasing the army and navy might find no favor. For the legitimate purposes of a national armed police, the army and navy are already sufficiently large. What is lacking in them is an elevation of intellectual and moral character; and how to supply that lack I have already indicated. But, it is asked: " What shall we do with the sur- plus money in the Treasury ?" I answer : " Use it in paying our debts." We owe many honest debts — and some of them to persons, who are suffering for the pay- ment of them. We shall be, altogether, without ex- cuse, if, v/hen our Treasury is overflowing, we do not pay them. ; but, instead thereof, indulge a mad war passion in building ships, and in making other war preparations. Eemember, too, that the debt, which we incurred in our superlatively mean and wicked war with Mexico is not all paid. I hope, that we shall pay it ; and not leave it to posterity to be obliged to pay it, or repudiate it. But it may also be asked.: " What SPEECH ON WAR. 63 shall we do witli tlie future surplus money in tlie Trea- sury?" I answer: "Have none." We should have none, either by adopting free trade, or by doing what is the next best thing — raising the tariff to the level of a full protection. The mixture of free trade and protection is a miserable compound. But it may also be asked : " What shall we then do for means to carry on the Government ?" I answer, that, when we shall no longer have war to support, and are weaned from the extravagances and follies, which are cherished and begotten by that dazzling and bewitching and befool- ing barbarism, it will not cost more than one tenth as much, as it now does, to defray the cost of administer- ing Grovernment ; and that tenth the people will be willing to be directly taxed for. But I have consumed the most of my hour, and must close. Do not pass any of these war bills. Do not so cruel, so foolish, so wicked a thing. Cruel it will be to the poor, who will have to pay these mil- lions of fresh taxes ; for, remember. Sir, that it is they, who have to pay them. The toiling poor are the only creators of wealth. Such as ourselves are but the con- duits of wealth. Foolish it will be, because the more you expend in this wise, the more will it be felt necessary to expend ; and because the more you seek to protect your country in this wise, the less will she be protected. Wicked it will be, because war, in all its phases, is one of the most horrid crimes against God and man. 64 SPEECH ON WAR. I have made my appeals, Sir, in the name of reason and religion, both of which condemn war. Let not these appeals, which are made to our higher nature — to all, that is pure, and holy, and sublime within ns — be overborne bj the counter appeals, which are made in the name of a vulgar patriotism, and which are all addressed to our lower nature — to our passion, pride, and prejudice — our love of conquest, and power, and plunder. There is, just now, an opportunity for Congress to do a better thing than to indulge and foment the spii^it of war. Our Government, as I am informed, is nego- tiating a commercial treaty with England. From what I learn of its provisions, I rejoice in it. I trust, that it will be consummated, and go into fall effect. It will well dispose of the fishery difficulties. It will open to us reciprocal free trade, in natural productions, with the British Korth American Provinces ; and so lead the way for our reciprocal free trade with those Pro- vinces in all productions — ^in the works of men's hands, as well as in the fruits of God's earth ; and so lead the way, I may add, for such unrestricted trade between ourselves and other countries also. I regret, that our Government has, hitherto, been so slow to embrace the liberal overtures of our northern neighbors. I trust, that no sectional, or other unworthy, jealousies will avail to hold us back, any longer, from -embracing these overtures. Let not Maine fear a new competition in lumber and ship-building ; nor Pennsylvania in coal ; SPEECH ON WAR. 65 nor Ohio in wlieat. These States will lose nothing in these respects ; and, if they should lose any thing, their loss will be inconsiderable, in comparison with their rich gain from free trade in natural productions with a country whose trade with us has doubled in the last seven years, and our exports to which are double her exports to us. Her trade with us in 1852 amounted to nearly seventeen millions of dollars. And let not the unworthy cavil be repeated, that these Provinces offer us free trade in natural productions only. How could they carry on their Governments, were they to consent to free trade in all productions ? Is it said, that they could by direct taxation ? But it does not lie in the mouth of a tariff nation like ours to say so. I repeat it — I rejoice in this treaty. To accomplish such a blessing for our own country, for the British Provinces, and for the world, will be an imperishable honor to this Administration. I am informed, that our Government is negotiating a commercial treaty with France also. Now, how happy if this House would use its gTeat influence to get in- serted in both these treaties an arbitration clause — a clause submitting international disagreements to a wise, disinterested, peaceful arbitrament! How happy, if this House would pass a resolution to this effect ! An arbitration clause in our treaties with those nations would render war between them and us well nigh mo- rally impossible. And such a clause would prepare the wav for the establishment of an international court— 6Q SPEECH ON WAR. that great desideratum of the world. Would that our country might participate most promptly and most largely in the glory of achieving that desideratum ! We have already, the village court, and the county court, and the district court, and the state court, and the national court; and, were it proposed to abolish one of these courts, and to let differences between men take their o^vn course, and run into violence and blood- shed, such proposition would be regarded as a proposi- tion to return to barbarism. But, Sir, I trust, that the day is near at hand, when it will be thought to be bar- barous not to have an international court. Sir, I have done. Eapidly, very rapidly, has the world advanced in civilization, the last forty years. The great reason why it has, is, that, during this peri- od, it has been comparatively exempt from the curse of war. Let the world continue to advance thus rapid- ly in civilization ; and let our nation continue to ad- vance with it. During these forty years, our nation has generally gone forward in the cause of peace. In its war Avith Mexico, it took a wide step backward. Grod grant that it may never take another step back- ward, in this cause ! Grod grant, that, in respect to this dear and sacred cause, our nation may adopt the motto on one side of the standard of the immortal Hampden : ^^ Nulla vestigia retrorsum^' — no steps backward: anl, having done this, it will have good ground to hope for its realization of the blessing of the motto on the other side cf that patriot's standard : " God with us." SPEECH ON WAR. 67 Pass these war bills, Sir, and carry out the Presi- dent's recommendations, and you will contribute to roll along that deep and broad stream of sin and sor- row, which war has rolled down through every age of the world. But defeat these bills, and frown upon these recommendations, and there will be joy on earth, and joy in heaven. i SPEECH ON THE DISTIIIBUTION OF SEEDS BY GOVERNMENT. FEBRUARY 7 , 1854. The Deficiency Bill was under discussion. Mr. Clark, of Michigan, had moved an amendment, to ex- pend ten thousand dollars in the purchase of seeds, etc., and Mr. Chamberlain, of Indiana, had moved to increase the sum to twenty thousand dollars. Mr. Smith said : I do not deny that the mutual exchange of the seeds of different countries is beneficial to the farming inter- est. Perhaps a similar exchange of specimens of cloth might help the mercantile and manufacturing interests. Perhaps a similar exchange of mechanical tools might be usefal to mechanics. But the material question is, whether individuals shall make these exchanges, or whe- ther Grovemment shall be the agent to negotiate them ? 70 DISTEIBUTION OF SEEDS BY GOVERNMENT. In mj opinion, Government \dolates its office, and transcends its province, in concerning itself with sucli things. Its sole, legitimate office is to protect the per- sons and property of its subjects. Leave it within its province, and it will hardly fail to do its work well. But allow it to exceed its province, and it will hardly fail to do all its work ill. Its usurpation of the work of the people has done more than any thing else to make Government a burden upon the people instead of a blessing to the people. It is true that the sum which is called for in this case is a small one. But the principle to be violated by our voting this sum is a gi^eat one. "We need to be continually mindful of the true and only office of civil government. It is to hold a shield over its subjects, beneath which they may, in safety from foreign aggressions, pursue their various callings. It is, also, by its ever-present and strong arm, to re- strain its subjects from aggressions upon each other. I trust. Sir, that we shall leave the people to get their seeds for themselves ; and that we shall vote down the amendment to the amendment, and the amendment also. SPEECH ON THE HOMESTEAD BILL, FEBEUAEY 21, 1854. [The motto prefixed by Mr. Smith to this speech, when it was lirat printed, was "Homes for AH,"] The House being in the Committee of tlie Whole on the State of the Union, on the Homestead Bill — Mr. Smith, said : ♦ Mr. Chaieman : I purpose to speak on the Home- stead Bill. I choose this bill for the subject of my re- marks, not only because it is ''the special order," and is, therefore, entitled to preference, but because it is, in my judgment, second in importance to no bill, that has come, or that shall come, before us. I am in favor of this bill. I do not say, that there is not a line, nor a word, in it, that T would not have 72 HOMESTEAD BILL. altered. But I do saj, that I am in favor of the sub- stance of it. I am in favor of the bill, not for the reason that, by giving up a part of the public lands to be occupied, the remainder will be more valuable to the Government than was the whole, before such occu- pation. Xor am I in favor of it, because the occupants will afford new subjects for taxation. Nor, in short, am I in favor of it for any of the current and popular reasons for it. But I am in favor of the bill, because I am in favor of what I interpret the bill essentially to be — ^let others interpret it, as they will. This bill, as I view it, is an acknowledgment, that the public lands belong, not to the Government, but to the landless. Whilst I hope, that the bill will prevail, I neverthe- less can hardly hope, that a majority of the Committee will approve my reasons for it. Indeed, if the Com- mittee shall so much as tolerate me, in putting forth these reasons, it is all I can expect, in the light of the fate of the land reform resolutions, which I offered in this Hall, the 16th January last. The storm of indig- nation, which burst upon those resolutions, did, I con- fess, not a little surprise me. The angry words, which came sounding over into this part of the Hall, quite startled me. Even the reading of the resolutions by the Clerk was hardly borne with ; and, no sooner had they been read, than, with hot haste, they were nailed to the table for ever and ever. And what are those resolutions, that they should have excited such displeasure ? Why, their chief and HOMESTEAD BILL. 7o controlling doctrine is, tliat men have a natural and equal right to the soil. And is this such a monstrous .doctrine, as to make me guilty of a great offence — of an outrage on propriety — for offering the resolutions ? It cannot be said, that they were expressed in indecent or profane language — in language offensive to purity or piety. "Why, then, were they so treated? I am not at liberty to supjpose, that it was from dislike to their author. It must be because their leading doctrine is so very wrong in the eyes of the honorable gentle- men around me. Now I am aware, that many of the doctrines, which I utter in this Hall, are very wrong in their eyes. But should they not remember, that their counter doctrines are no less wrong in my eyes ? And yet, I appeal to all, whether I have ever evinced even the slightest impatience or unkindness under anything I have heard here? and whether the equal footing, on which we find ourselves here, does not require, as well that patience and kindness should be accorded to me, as hy me ? However we may regard each other out of this Hall, certain it is, that, if, in this Hall, we do not regard each other as gentlemen entitled to mutual and perfect respect, we shall dishonor ourselves, and our constituency, and civil government itself I am sure, that no member of this body would have me disguise, or hold in abeyance, my real views on any subject under discussion. I am sure, that none of them would have me guilty of the self-degradation of affect- 4 74 HOMESTEAD BILL. ing, and uttering, otlier views, and of studying an un- principled accommodation of myself to tlie majority around me. I am sure, tliat none of them would have me consent to be "A pipe for fortune's finger, To sound what stop she please." You would all have me be myself, and speak myself, however wrong myself may be. You would all have me deal honestly and honorably with yourselves. But this I cannot do, unless I deal honestly and honorably with mj^self If unfaithful to m}^ own convictions, if false to myself, I shall, of necessity, be false to you : but if' true to myself, I shall, of necessity, be true to jou. To quote again from that great reader of the human heart from whom I had just quoted : " To thine own self be true ; And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man." I will say no more on this point than to add, that, God helj^ing me, I shall earn the respect of every mem- ber of this body, by respecting myself And now, to my argument, and to my endeavor to show, that land monopoly is wrong, and that civil gov- ernment should neither practice, nor permit it ; and that the duty of CongTess is to yield up all the public land to actual settlers. HOMESTEAD BILL. " 75 I admit, that there are things, in which a man can liave absolute property, and which, without qnahfica- tion or restriction, he can buy, or sell, or bequeath, at his pleasure. But, I deny, that the soil is among these things. What a man produces from the soil, he has an absolute right to. He may abuse the right. It nevertheless remains. But no such right can he have in the soil itself. If he could, he might monopolize it. If very rich, he might purchase a township or a county ; and, in connection with half a dozen other monopolists, he might come to obtain all the lands of a state or a nation. Their occupants might be compelled to leave them and to starve; and the lands might be con- verted into parks and hunting-grounds, for the enjoy- ment of the aristocracy. Moreover, if this could be done, in the case of a state or a nation, why could it not be done in the case of the whole earth ? But it may be said, that a man might monopolize the fruits of the soil, and thus become as injurious to his fellow-men, as by monopolizing the soil itself It is true, that he might, in this wise, produce a scarcity of food. But the calamity would be for a few months only, and it would serve to stimulate the sufferers to guard against its recurrence, by a more faithful tillage, and by more caution in parting with their crops. Hav- ing the soil still in their hands, they would have the remedy still in their hands. But had they suffered the soil itself to l^o monopolized ; had they suffered the 76 HOMESTEAD BILL. soil itself, instead of the fruits of it, to pass out of their hands; then they would be without remedy. Then they would lie at the mercy of him, who has it in his power to dictate the terms on which they may again have access to the soil, or who, in his heartless perverse- ness, might refuse its occupation on any terms what- ever. What I have here supposed in my argument is abundantly — alas! but too abundantly — justified by facts. Land monopoly has reduced no small share of the human family to abject and wretched dependence, for it has shut them out from the great source of sub- sistence, and frightfully increased the precariousness of life. Unhappy Ireland illustrates the great power of land monopoly for e^dl. The right to so much as a standing place on the earth is denied to the great mass of her people. Their great impartial Father has placed them on the earth; and, in placing them on it, has irresistibly imphed their right to live of it. Neverthe- less, land monopoly tells them, that they are trespassers, and treats them as trespassers. Even when most indul- gent, land monopoly allows them nothing better than to pick up the crumbs of the barest existence ; and, when, in his most rigorous moods, the monster com- pels them to starve and die by millions. Ireland — poor, land-monopoly-cursed and famine-wasted Ireland — has still a population of some six millions ; and yet it is only six thousand persons, who have monopolized HOMESTEAD BILL. her soil. Scotland has some three millions of people ; and three thousand is the number of the monopolists of her soil. England and Wales contain some eighteen mil- lions of people, and the total nmnber of those, who claim exclusive right to the soil of England and Wales, is thirty thousand. I may not be rightly informed, as to the numbers of the land monopolists in those countries ; but whether they are twice as great, or half as great, as I have given them, is quite immaterial to the essence of my argument against land monopoly. I would say in this connection, that land monopoly, or the accumu- lation of the land in the hands of the few, has increased very rapidly in England. A couple of centuries ago, there were several times as many English land-holders, as there are now. I need say no more to prove, that land monopoly is a very high crime, and that it is the imperative duty of Government to put a stop to it. Were the monopo- ly of the light and air practicable, and were the mono- polists of these elements (having armed themselves with title deeds to them) to sally forth and threaten the peo- ple of one town with a vacuum, in case they are unwill- ing or unable to buy their supply of air ; and threaten the people of another town with total darkness, in case they will not or cannot buy their supply of light ; there, confessedly, would be no higher duty on Govermnent than to put an end to such wicked and death-deal- ing monopolies. But these monopolies would not differ 78 HOMESTEAD BILL, in principle from land monopoly : and they "WOiUd be no more fatal to tlie enjoyments of linman existence, and to Imman existence itself, than land monopoly has proved itself capable of being. Why land monopoly has not swept the earth of all good, is not because it is Tinadapted and inadequate to that end, but because it has been only ]Dartially carried out. The right of a man to the soil, the light, and the ah, is to so much of each of them, as he needs, and no more ; and for so long as he lives, and no longer. In other words, this dear mother earth, with her never-fivJliiig nutritious bosom; and this life-preserving air, which floats around it ; and this sweet light, which visits it, are all owned by each present generation, and are equal- ly owned by all the members of such generation. Hence, whatever the papers or parchments regarding the soil, which we may pass between ourselves, they can have no legitimate power to impair the equal right to it, either of the persons, who compose this generation, or of the persons, who shall compose the next. It is a very glaring assumption on the part of one generation to control the distribution and enjoyment of natural rights for another generation. We of the pre- sent generation have no more liberty to provide, that one person of the next generation shall have ten thou- sand acres and another but ten acres, than we have t'v) provide, that one person of the next generation shall live a hundred years and another but a hundred days ; and no more liberty to provide, that a person of the next HOMESTEAD BILL. 79 generation shall be destitute of land, than that he shall be destitute of light or air. They, who compose a gen- eration, are, so far as natural rights are concerned, abso- lutely entitled to a free and equal start in life ; and that equahty is not to be disturbed, and that freedom is not to be encumbered, by any arrangements of the preced- ing generation. I have referred to the miseries, which land monopoly has brought upon the human family, and to the duty of the Government to put a stop to it. But how shall Grovernment put a stop to it ? I answer, by putting a stop to the traffic in land, and by denying to every per- son all right to more than his share of the land. In other words, the remedy for land monopoly is, that Gov- ernment shall |)rescribe the largest quantity of land, which may be held by an individual ; and shall, at dis- tant periods, vary the quantity, according to the increase or diminution of the population. This maximum might, in our own country, where the population is so sparse, be carried as high as four or ^ve hundred acres. Never- theless, it might be necessary to reduce it one half, should our population be quadrupled. In a country, as densely peopled as Ireland, this maximum should, probably, not exceed thirty or forty acres. What I have said concerning the land maximum ob- viously applies but to such tracts, as are fit for hus- bandry. To many tracts — ^to such, for instance, as are valuable only for mining or lumbering — it can have no application. 80 HOMESTEAD BILL. I may be asked, wlietlier I would have the present acknowledged claims to land disturbed. I answer, that I would, where the needs of the people demand it. In Ireland, for instance, there is the most urgent ne- cessity for overriding such claims, and subdividing the land anew. But, in our own country, there is an abun- dance of vacant and unappropriated land for the land- less to go to. We ought not, however, to presume upon this abundance to delay abolishing land monopoly. The greediness of land monopolists might, in a single gener- ation, convert this abundance into scarcity. Moreover, if we do not provide now for the peaceable equal dis- tribution of the public lands, it may be too late to pro- vide for it hereafter. Justice, so palpable and so neces- sary, cannot be withheld but at the risk of being grasjD- ed violently. What I have said resj)ecting the duty of Government to vary the land maximum at wide intervals, does, as I have already intimated, apply to our own country, as well as to other countries. The time may come, when, in this country, broad as it is, it will be necessary and just to disturb even the richest and most highly cultivated landed possessions. Should our population become so crowded, as to afford but fifty acres to a family, then the farm of a hundred acres, and that, too, however ex- pensively every acre of it may be improved, must be divided into two equal parts ; and the possessor of it, however old may be his possession, must be compelled to give up one of them to his landless brother. To HOMESTEAD BILL. 81 deny the soundness of this conclusion, is to deny, not only the equality, but even the very fact, of the human brotherhood. It is in the light of the possibihty of siich a division, that no man can sell his farm and convey it by a deed, which shall certainly carry title to it for ever. I am willing to admit, that a man can sell or bequeath his farm, though, in strictness, it is but the betterments or improvements upon the soil, and not the soil itself, which he sells or bequeaths. But the purchaser, or inheritor, and theu^ successors, incur the hazard of having their possessions clipped by the nevs^ land maximum, which it may be the duty of Government to prescribe. It is said, however, that all talk of land monopoly m America is impertinent and idle. It is boasted, that, in escaping from primogeniture and entail, we have esca j)- ed from the evils of land monopoly. But the boast is unfounded. These evils already press hea^rily upon us ; and they will press more and more heavily upon us, unless the root of them is extirpated — unless land mo- nopoly is abolished. In the old portions of the country, the poor are oppressed and defrauded of an essential natural right by the accumulation of farms in the hands of wealthy families. In the new, the way of the poor, and indeed of the whole population, to comfort and pros- perity is blocked up by tracts of wild land, which spec- ulators retain for the u.njust purpose of having them in- crease in value out of the toil expended upon the con- tipfuous land. And whv should we flatter ourselves, 82 HOMESTEAD BILL. that land monopoly, if suffered to live among u;^, will not, in time, get laws enacted for its extension and per- petuity, as effective even as primogeniture and entail ? To let alone any great wrong, in the liope, that it will never outgrow its present limits, is very unwise — very imsafe. But land monopoly is not onl}^ a great, but a mighty wrong ; and, if let alone, it may stretch and for- tify itself, until it ho-S become invincible. Much happier vrorld will this be, when land monopo- ly shall cease ; when his needed portion of the soil shall be accorded to every person ; when it shall no more be bought and sold ; when, like salvation, it shall be "without money and without price ;" when, in a word, it shall be free, even as God made it free. Then, v,^hen the good time, prophetically spoken of, shall have come, and "every man shall sit under his own vine and fig tree," the world will be much happier, because, in the first place, wealth will then be so much more equally dis- tributed, and the rich and the poor vfill then be so com- paratively rare. Riches and poverty are both abnor- mal, false, unhappy states, and they will yet be declared to be sinful states. They beget each other. Over against the one is ever to be found a corresponding de- gree of the other. So long, then, as the masses are robbed by land monopoly, the world will be cursed with riches and poverty. But, when the poor man is put in possession of his portion of the goodly green earth, and is secured by the strong arm of Government in the enjo^Tnent of a home, from which not he, nor his wife, HOMESTEAD BILL. 83 nor Ms children, can be driven, then is lie raised, above poverty, not only by the possession of the soil, but still more by the virtues, which he cultivates in his heart, whilst he cultivates the soil. Then, too, he no longer ministers to the undue accumulation of wealth by others, as he did, when advantage was taken of his homeless condition, and he was compelled to serve for what he could get. I would add in this place, that inasmuch as land monopoly is the chief cause of beggary, comparatively little beggary will remain after land monopoly is abol- ished. Where a nation is very hv.dlj governed in other respects, the abolition of land monopoly may be very far from resulting in the abolition of all beggary. And here let me say, that very little good can be promised from any reform to any people, who allow themselves to be oppressed and crushed by a national debt. France has done much toward abolishing land monopoly. But, because she is so much worse governed than England, she is, in the extent of her beggary, not very far behind England. I need not dwell upon, nor even describe, the evils of beggary ; and I need not say, that it is the duty of Government to put an end to it, so far as Government has the power, and the right to do so. Beggary is an im- measui-ably great evil. It is such, not only because it is a burden upon the world, but far more, because it is a shame to the world— a shame to the beggar, and a shame to mankind. I would, at this stage of my remarks, notice the cavil, 84: HOMESTEAD BILL. that even if the equal ownership of the soil were prac- ticallj acknowledged, nevertheless there would be per- sons, who would get rich, and persons, who vfould get poor. This would, doubtless, be true to a considerable extent ; for, on the hand, there are the provident, and on the other the improvident ; on the one hand the cunning and craft j, and on the other the simple and un- suspecting. But because there will be rich and poor after the land is equally distributed, is that a reason why it should not be equally distributed ? If, notwithstanding such equal distribution, there are persons, who will still be poor; if, notwithstanding Government restores to its subjects their natural right to the soil, some of them are incapable of rising above poverty ; then is it all the naore clearly proved, that Government was bound to mitigate their poverty by securing them homes. If, notwithstanding they are put in possession of their por- tions of the soil, they are still poor, alas, how much poorer would they have been without those portions ? And, again : if there are persons who get rich, notwith- standing they are not permitted to wield land monopo- ly in behalf of their ambition, then how manifestly im- portant is it, that they were not allowed this means of getting richer ? In the next place, the world will be much happier, when land monopoly shall cease, because manual labor will then be so honorable, because so well nigh uni versal. It will be happier, too, because the wages system, HOMESTEAD BILL. 85 with all its attendant degradation and unhappy influ- ences, will find but little room in the new and radically changed condition of society, which will follow the abo- lition of land monopoly. Then, as a general thing, each man will do his own work, and each woman hers ; and this, too, not from choice only, but from necessity also ; for then, few will be wealthy enough to be able to hire, and few poor enough to consent to serve. It will be happier, too, because of the general equal- ity there will then be, not in property only, but in education, and other essential respects also. How much fewer the instances then, than now, of a haughty spirit on the one hand, and of an abject spirit on the other ! The pride of superior circumstances, so common now, ■^dll then be rare. And rare, too, will be that abject- ness of spirit, so common now, (though, happily, far from universal,) in the condition of dependent poverty ; and the difficulty of overcoming which is so well com- pared to the difficulty of making an empty bag stand up straight ! Again, the world will be happier, when land mono- poly is abolished, because it will more abound in mar- riage. Marriage, when invited by a free soil, will be much more common and early, than when, as now, it must be delayed, until the parties to it are able to pur- chase a home. Another gain to the world from abolishing land mo- nopoly, is that war would then bo well nigh impossible. 86' HOMESTEAD BILL. ' It would be so, if only because it would be difficult to enlist men into its ranks. For wlio would leave the comforts and endearments of home, to enter upon the poorlj-paid and unhonored services of a private sol- dier. It was not " young Fortinbras" only, who, in collecting his army, " Shark'd up a list of landless resolutes." But, in every age and country, war has found its re- cruits among the homeless — among vagabonds. And still another benefit to flow from the abolition ' of land monopoly is its happy influence upon the cause of temperance — ^that precious cause, which both the great and the small are, in their folly and madness, so wont to scorn, but which is, nevertheless, none the less essential to private happiness and prosperity, to nation- al growth and glory. The ranks of intemperance, like those of war, are, to a great extent, recruited from the homeless and the vagrant. I T\'ill glance at but one more of the good effects, that ■will result from the abolition of land monopoly. Eeli- gion will rejoice, when the masses, now robbed of homes by land monopoly, shall have homes to thank Grod for — homes, in which to cultivate the home-bred virtues, to feed upon religious truth, and to gTOW in Christian vigor and beauty. How numerous and precious the blessings, that would follow the abolition of land monopoly ! By the num HOMESTEAD BILL. 87 ber and preciousness of tliose blessings i miglit entreat civil government, the earth over, to abolish it. But I will not. I prefer to demand this .justice in the name of justice. In the name of justice, I demand, that civil government, wherever guiltj of it, shall cease to sell and give away land — shall cease to sell and give away what is not its own. The vacant land belongs to all, who need it. It belongs to the landless of every clime and condition. The extent of the legitimate concern of Government with it is but to regulate and protect its occupation. In the name of justice do I demand of Government, not only, that it shall itself cease from the land traffic, but that it shall compel its subjects to cease from it. Government owes protection to its subjects. It owes them nothing else. But that people are em- phatically unprotected, who are left by their Govern- ment to be the prey of land monopoly. The Federal Government has sinned greatly against human- rights in usurping the ownership of a large share of the American soil. It can, of course, enact no laws, and exert no influence, against land monopoly, whilst it is itself the mammoth monopolist of land. This Government has presumed to sell millions of acres, and to give away millions of acres. It has lavished land on States, and corporations, and indivi- duals, as if it were itself the Great Maker of the land. Our State Governments, also, have been guilty of as- suming to own the soil. They, too, need repent. 88 HOMESTEAD BILL. And thej will repent, if the Federal Government will lead the way. Let this Government distinctly disclaim all ownership of the soil ; and, everywhere within its jurisdiction, let it forbid land monopoly, and prescribe the maximum quantity of land, which an individual may possess, and the State Governments will not fail to be won by so good and so attractive an example. And if the Governments of this great nation shall ac- knowledge the right of every man to a spot of earth for a home, may we not hope, that the Governments of many other nations will speedily do likewise ? Nay, may we not, in that case, regard the age as not distant, when land monopoly, which numbers far more victims than any other evil, and which is, moreover, the most prolific parent of evil, shall disappear from the whole earth, and shall leave the whole earth to illustrate, as it never can, whilst under the curse of land monopoly, the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man ? But will this Government take this step, which we have now called on it to take ? Will it go forward in this work of truth and love ? Will it have a part, and the most honorable part, in bringing all this blessedness and glory upon the human family ? A more hnportant question has never been addressed to it ; and the pass- ing of this bill will be the most significant and satisfac- tory answer, which this question could now receive. Let this bill become a law, and, if our Government shall be consistent with itself, land monopoly will surely HOMESTEAD BILL. 89 cease within the limits of the exclusive jurisdiction of that Government. But let this bill be defeated, and let success attend the applications for scores of millions of acres for soldiers, and for hundreds of millions of acres for railroad and canal companies, and land monopoly •will then be so strongly fastened upon this nation, that violence alone will be able to throw it off. The best hope for the poor will then perish. The most cherished reliance for human progress will then be trodden under foot. Let it not be supposed, that I would not have the soldier liberally paid. No man would go further than myself in rewarding the armed servant of the Eepublic. But I would not have the poor robbed ; — I would not have a high crime committed against humanity ; — even for the sake of doing justice to the soldier. Indeed, justice can never be done by injustice. Whatever is due to the soldier should be paid — ^paid promptly — and paid, too, with large interest. But let it be paid in money. And, I would here say, that a little money would be worth more to the soldier than much land. If the land market is to be glutted, as is now proposed, his land will be worth but little to him. It will not sell, at the present time. And with him and his necessitous family, the present time is emphatically aU time. They cannot wait, as can the speculator, until the land shall become salable. My reference to the speciilator affords me an occasiou 90 HOMESTEAD BILL. for saying, that not only tlie lands, which you let soldiers have, but also the lands, which you let rail- road companies and canal companies have, will get into the hands of land speculators. That is theii- sure and speedy destination ; and it is in those hands, that land monopoly works it-s mightiest mis- chief, and develops its guiltiest character. Nor let it be supposed, that there is no railroad nor no" canal, that I would have Government aid in building. Wherever it can be fairly plead in behalf of the pro- posed canal or railroad, that it cannot be built without the aid of Government, and that the building of it will furnish Government with an indispensable, or, at least, very important means for extending that protection, which is ever due from Government ; there, I admit, is a case, in which Government is bound to aid. Hence is it, that whilst, on the one hand, I pronounce it to be a gross perversion of its powers, and a wide and guilty departure from its province, for Government to help build canals, and railroads which are to subserve but the ordinary purposes of commerce and travel ; I hold, on the other, that Government is bound to offer a liberal, though not an extravagant sum to the com- pany, that shall build the Pacific Kailroad — that road being greatly needed, as a facility for affording Gov- ernmental protection. Hence it is, too, that the claim on Government to help build the canal around the Falls of St. Mary was a just one. And for the like HOMESTEAD BILL. 91 reason sliould Grovernment aid in building the pro- posed canal around the Falls of Niagara. It is true, that the commercial interests of many of our States call loudly for the building of this canal. In- deed, there is no one thing for which they call so loudly. Nevertheless, I would not, for that reason, have Gov- ernment respond to the call. But because this canal might prove an important means in the hands of Grov- ernment of affording that protection, which it owes to the persons and property of its subjects, I should feel bound to vote the liberal aid of Government in building i1> Moreover, Government would be grossly inconsist- ent, if, so long as it looks to the possibility of war, it should refuse to vote two or three millions of dollars to the company, that might thereby be induced to furnish Government with this means of transporting its vessels, munitions, and provisions of war, between Lakes Erie and Ontario. LETTER EXPLAINIXa VOTE ON THE HOMESTEAD BILL, [Mr. Douglass published it in the newspaper which he edits.] House of Representatives, March 6, 1854. Frederick Douglass: My Dear Sir : An liour ago, I gave my vote against the Homestead Bill : and, tliat too, notwithstanding I liad made a speecli in favor of it ; and, that too, not- withstanding I have, for so many years, loved, and ad- vocated, and acted on, the great essential principles of the bill. My apparent inconsistency in this case is explained by the fact, that, just before we were called to vote on the bill, it was so amended, as to limit its grant of land to ivhite persons. If my fellow land-reformers, with whom I have, so long, toiled for the success of our land-reform doctrines, 94 VOTE ON THE HOMESTEAD BILL. sliall be aggrieved b}'- my vote, I sliall be sorry. Kever- tlieless, I can never regret my vote. I was a man before I was a land-reformer. And, for tlie sake of no gains, however great, or liowever many, can I consent to ignore tlie claims, and even tlie fact itself, of a common man- hood. But the advantages, which are songht, at the expense of trampling on human rights, are not gains. Such gains are losses — even to those, v/ho get them. The Homestead Bill would have been purchased at too dear a rate had it proscribed only one negro, or only one Indian. The curse of God is upon the bill, or there is no Grod. There is no God, if we have liberty to in- sult and outrage any portion of His children. To reconcile me to the bill as amended, I was told by one of the members of Congress, that the colored people would not be shut out from the public lands : — but that they could still buy them ! That is, the color- ed people must buy their homes, whilst the white peo- ple are to have free homes ! What a comment this on the gTeat justifying doctrine of negro-slavery, that the negroes are unable to take care of themselves ! What a spectacle of merciless cruelty we present ! The most frightful passages of history furnish no parallel to it. Our National Legislature joins our State Legislatures in holding out to the free colored people the hard alter- native of returning under the yoke of slavery, or of being shut out from our broad continent. And, then, the excuse for this treatment is no less unreasonable and insulting than the treatment is cruel and murdero-a«. VOTE ON THE HOMESTEAD BILL. 95 It is, tliat the free colored people are too ignorant, and lazy, and worthless, to deserve any better clioice than slavery or death. And this is the excuse of those, v/ho shut out the colored people from schools; and drive them into negro-pews ; and banish them from society ; and mark them as physical and moral lepers, to be everywhere shunned, and loathed, and hated ! That our free colored brethren should in these cir- cumstances be no more discouraged and dejected ; no more self-despairing, and self-despising ; no lower in in- telligence, and morals, and thrift, is to me amazing. That the mass of them should, notwithstanding the de- pressing, crushing influences upon them, be still rising and bettering their condition ; and that there should be rapidly multiplying instances among them of the ac- quisition of wealth, and of distinction in writing, and oratory, and general scholarship, is more than I had supposed to be possible. Your friend, Gereit Smith. SPEECH OX TILE BILL TO AID THE TERRITORY OF MIMESOTA IN" CONSTRUCTING A RAILROAD FOR mLITARY, POSTAL, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. MAKOH 7, 1S54. Mr. Chairman; As I liave but just now come into the Hall, and as I have lost tlie former p9,rt of the discussion, and as I have never until this moment seen a copy of this bill, I may not know, with the necessary precision, what are the subject-matters of the discussion. But, with my present impressions, I am opposed to the bill. I am opposed to this bill, not because I am opposed to any existing railroad company that may be interested in the bill, nor because I doubt the worthiness of any company that may be organized to build it. I have no reason to apprehend that such a company would be composed of any other than honorable men. I have no reason to apprehend that such a company would not be 5 98 RAILROAD-BUILDING, NOT moved to build tlie road by as pure and as generous a regard for tlie public welfare as ever prompted any, even tlie best railroad company. Kor am I opposed to this bill because of tlie possible fact tbat a company of gen- tlemen may be interested in a tract of land at one of tlie termini of tbe proposed road. Nor am I opposed to this bill because the proposed road may liave the ef- fect to concentrate trade and travel at this point, or to divert trade and travel from that point. I am opposed to this bill because it calls for Govern- ment to do with the public lands what I hold Govern- ment has no right to do with them. I hold that they do not belong to Government, and that Government has nothing to do with them but to regulate and pro- tect the occupations which shall be made upon them. I hold that the lands belong to the landless ; and that both reason and religion, policy and j^rincijDle, require that thev shall be surrendered to the landless. But, as I had the opportunity, a week or two since, to discuss this point somewhat extensively on this floor, I will not con- sume the time of the committee with it any further, than to say, that when I claim the j)ublic lands for the land- less, I mean not only the landless of a certain complex- ion, but all the landless. Believing, as I do, that all the varieties of the human family are equally dear to the great heart of their common Maker, I trust that they will ever be equally dear to my httle heart. So do I aim to bear myself toward all descriptions of my fellow-men — ^toward all my equal brothers — for every man is my THE BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENr. 99 equal brother — that, at the last day, I shall be able to look into the faces of them all, "onabashed by the con- sciousness that I have pursued any of them in this life with unrelenting prejudice and merciless hatred. But to the argument. And, now, for the sake of the argument, I will admit that the public lands are proper- ty in the hands of the Government — as much so as is money. Nevertheless, I still deny that Government may use them in the way contemplated by this bill. I insist that Government shall use its property for none other than strictly governmental purposes. It may use its property in defraying the expenses of Government ; it may use it in afibrding protection to the persons and property of its subjects ; but there is nothing else for which Government may use it. In point of principle this bill is all the same, as would be a bill for the Federal Government to build with money, and nothing but money, the whole of a railroad in Minnesota. The principle can not be affected by the fact that the road in this case is to be built with la,nd instead of money ; nor by the fact that the appropria- tion of land asked for is insufficient to pay the whole cost of the road. If the Government may build with land it may build with money. If it may furnish one half or one fourth of the means necessary to build the road, then it may furnish all. But would not Congress be startled by the grave proposition for the Federal Government to build the whole of a long railroad in Minnesota, and that, too, with money ? It should not 100 KAILEOAD-BUILUIXG, XOT be, however, if it is reconciled to the passing of this bill. What is the argument most relied on to influence* Government to help build this road ? It is that the road will accelerate the settlement of Minnesota and the development of her resources ; and greatly enhance the value of the public lands in that Territory. I admit that this would be the effect, and I should rejoice in it ; for I regard the welfare of that Territory with great in- terest. But this same effect, to a greater or less extent, could be produced by Government's building canals in that Territory. May Government, therefore, build canals in it ? Again, Government might promote these good objects by building churches and school-houses in the Territory. But nearly or quite all of us would con- demn it as a gross perversion of its true of&ce for Govern- ment to help Minnesota to school-houses and churches. And yet, so far as its right is concerned. Government can as well do these things for Minnesota as to build railroads for her ; ay, and so far as its right is concerned, it can as well sprinkle Minnesota over with stores and blacksmith-shops. I intimated that I am not opposed to the building of the road in question, because of its possible rivalry with some other road. And yet, one reason why I am op- posed to the granting of land in aid of the building of this and other railroads is, that Government may, in this wise, be throwing its great weipfht into the scah^of THE BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENT. 101 one road against another ; of one town against another ; or of some other interest of one part of the people against the like interest of another part of the people. Government should avoid partiality, not only in the pur- pose of its acts, but, as far as possible, in the effect of its acts, also. Government is bound to be strictly and sternly impartial. But such impartiality it v\rill best maintaiQ, and can only maintain, by refusing to extend special help to any classes or portions of its subjects ; and by. simply and equally protecting all. I rejoice in the free and extended discussion of this bni, if it is only because I hope that we may come out of it with juster views of the nature of the of^ce, and juster views of the limits of the province, of Civil Gov- ernment. It is high time that the American Congress had settled, with more distinctness and more certainty than it seems to have done, the legitimate boundaries and the legitimate obj ects of Civil Government. These boundaries and these objects thus settled, we should not hesitate as to the true disposition to make of this bill, and of all kindred bills. We should reject them all promptly. But it is said that we have abundant precedents for such disposition of the public lands as is proposed in this bill. Arguments drawn from precedents are of doubtful value. An age of progress should rise above precedents — should make precedents for itself Were we to rely on precedents, it might be urged against us 102 KAILROAD-BUILDING, NOT that, masmuch as there are more precedents for monar- chies than for republics, we ought to supplant our Ke- public with a monarchy. In this disordered and mis- governed world there are far more precedents for the wrong and the false than for the right and the true. Shall we, therefore, give up the right and the true ? The Governments of the earth have ever proved great curses to the people, by meddling with the concerns of the people. It is time that we had ceased from follow- ing such precedents ; and that we had left the people to do their own work ; and, therefore, to build their o^vn railroads without help from Government on the one hand, and without hindrance from it on the other. Such hindrance there may be in the case of one road, where Government helps build another, which may prove its rival. This usurpation by Government of the work of the people, and its consequent neglect and bad performance of its own work has everywhere, and in every age, been the sorest evil that the people have suffered. I would that we might teach, in the most emphatic and unmistakable language, that, so far as the influence of this body extends, the American Government shall henceforth confine itself to its only and one work of protecting the persons and property of its subjects, and shall leave the people to do their own work of building churches, and schools, and railroads, and canals. THE BUSINESS OF GOVEENMENT. ■ 108 Mr. Bayly, of Virginia. And forming their own governments. Mr. Smith, of New- York. Yes ; and forming their own governments. That is right. The people should be allowed to form their own governments. To return. We have precedents for land monopoly, also. Poor Ireland, and indeed, almost every other part of the world, furnishes us with numberless such precedents. But I hold that we should turn our backs upon such precedents, and throw open the public lands, without price, to the landless to wliom they belong. I say that they belong to the landless. The bare fact that a man is without land is title enough to his needed sbare of the vacant land. No clearer, stronger title to it can he possibly have. Is there a spare home in the great common inheritance of the human family ? Wlio should bave it if not the homeless ? I repeat it, we should make the public lands free to the poor. If, on the contrary, we shall do with them as is proposed in this and similar bills, we shall make much of them cost to the poor double, and much of tbem even quadruj)le, the price that Grovernment puts upon tbem. Mr. EiCHARDSON. I dislike to interrupt the gentle- man ; but I feel it to be my duty to raise a question of order. Three days are set apart for the consideration of territorial business, and I submit that it is not in order 104 EAILROAD-BUILDING, NOT for the gentleman from New- York to discuss the Home- stead Bill imder the proposition now before us. Mr. Smith. I would say a word in reply to the gen- tleman, did I believe that there is any force or perti- nence in what he has said. The Chairman. The gentleman from Illinois raises the question of order that the gentleman from New- York is not confining his remarks to the discussion of the bill now under consideration. The Chair perceives that the gentleman is arguing that this grant of land shall not be made, and he believes that the gentleman from New- York is in order. Mr. Smith. I ask no latitude, sir. I am willing you should hold me as strictly to the subject-matter as if I were discussing it in the House, and not in this com- mittee. I have yet to learn (and I think I may add that they who know me have yet to learn) that I am addicted to wandering from the subject under discus- sion. From having long trained myself to the most careful confinement of myself to the subject in hand, I hope not to be found guilty of offending against my habit, and against confessed propriety in this respect. But, sir, I am aware that many gentleman appear eager to speak on this occasion ; and that there is not an hour, nor a half-hour, for each of us. I will therefore bring my remarks to a close ; I would be just and generous in my use of our common time. THE BUSINESS OF GOVEKNMENT. 105 It is said tliat railroads are necessary to enable the poor to get to tlie public lands. Admit it. Kever- theless, tliere Yfill be railroads enongli for this purpose without Government's giving to the rich the lands that belong to the poor. The poor ask no such left-handed help as this from Government. The poor have no faith in the maxim, that if Government will take care of the rich, the rich will take care of the poor. In de- manding the public lands of Government the poor demand only what belongs to the poor ; and if Govern- ment will yield to this demand, the poor will either provide themselves with railroads, or they will make it the interest of others to provide them. 5* SPEECH ON THE SECOND DEFICIENCY BILL. MAKCH 16, 18 5 4. Mr. Prestok, of Kentucky, liad moved an amend- ment for the completion of various custom-liouses and marine hospitals; and Mr. Stai^ton, of Tennessee, liad moved to amend tlie amendment by adding to tlie appropriation. Mr. Smith said :— Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment to the amendment, because I am opposed to the original amendment offered by the gen- tleman from Kentucky, [Mr. Preston.] I am opposed to the original amendment, not because I am opposed to these appropriations for custom-houses and marine hospitals, for I am in favor of them. I voted for them all. I voted for them all because, having the recom- 108 SECOND DEFICIENCY BILL. mendation of tlie Secretary, I tlioiiglit tliat tliey were entitled to my vote. I voted for these appropriations notwitlistanding I am an absolute free-trade man. I long for the day when there will not be a custom-house left on the face of the earth, and when this obstruction to the free intercourse, of the nations of the earth with each other shall have passed away forever. But so long as the tariff policy is among the pohcies of our nation, we must have custom-houses ; and it is better that Govern- ment should build them than rent them. If Govern- ment builds them, they will be safe and suitable. If it rents them, they will probably be unsafe and unsuit- able. I am opposed to embodying these appropriations in the deficiency bill, because, where it is practicable, it is well to have every measure left to stand on its own merits. But I am still more opposed to it because I fear that the deficiency bill, if loaded down with these appropriations, will fail. Now, I cannot consent to an attitude which may look at aU like unreasonable or factious opposition to the Administration. In all the views and measures of the Administration which are reasonable, I shall gladly concur. To defeat the deficiency bill would be to embarrass the Administration, and would be to block the wheels of Government. Moreover, it would be to dishonor the Government and the nation, by -leaving debts unpaid which should be paid, and paid now — SECOND DEFICIENCY BILL. 109 for in many cases there is urgent need of their being paid now. When, a few weeks ago, the deficiency bill was lost, through the mutual jealousies of the Whigs and Demo- crats, I rejoiced that I stand alone upon this floor ; that I am a party by myself, and in myself ; that I am in a greatly and gloriously independent minority of one, and that I was therefore unaffected by those jealousies which defeated the bill. I hope, sir, that the deficiency bill will be passed ; and I hope that when it is passed, we shall pass the appropriation bill also. When we have done justice to the deficiency bill, we shall thereby have conciliated the friends of that bill, who are opposed to the appro- priation bill. They ^vill then be better able and better disposed to view with candor the claims of these pro- posed appropriations, and to appreciate thek force. TEMPERANCE. MAECH 31, 1854. DuEiNG tlie discussion tliis day on tlie bill for build- ing Steamships, Mr. Smith made repeated attempts to amend it with, the words : " No intoxicating liquors shall ever be kept in said ships ;" — ^bnt the Chairman as repeatedly ruled the amendment to be out of order. On Mr. Smith's appeal from the division of the Chair, the House sustained the Chair. SPEECH ON THE NEBRASKA BILL. APRIL 6, 1S54. [The motto which Mr Smith prefixed to this Speech, and under which it first appeared, was : " No Slavery in Nebraska : No Slavery in the Nation : Slavery an Outlaw/'] So, Mr. Cliairman, tlie slavery qnestion is up again ! —up again, even in Congress!! It will not keep down. At no bidding, however authoritative, will it keep dovfn. Tlie President of tlie United States com- mands it to keep down. Indeed, he has, hitherto, seemed to make the keeping down of this ques- tion the great end of his great ofdce. Members of Congress have so far humbled themselves, as to pledge themselves on this floor to keep it down. National political conventions promise to discountenance, and even to resist, the agitation of slavery, both in and out of Congress. Commerce and politics are as afraid of this agitation, as Macbeth Avas of the ghost of Banquo ; 114 THE InEBRASKA BILL. and many titled divines, taking tlieir cue from com- merce and politics, and being no less servile than mer- chants and demagogues, do what they can to keep the slavery question out of sight. But all is of no avail. The saucy slavery question mil not mind them. To repress it in one quarter, is only to have it burst forth more prominently in another quarter. If you hold it back here, it will break loose there, and rush forward with an accumulated force, that shall amply revenge for all its detention. And this is not strange, when we consider how great is the power of truth. It were madness for man to bid the grass not to grow, the waters not to run, the winds not to blow. It were madness for him to assume the mastery of the elements of the 23hysical world. But more emphatically were it madness for him to attemjot to hold in his puny fist the forces of the moral world. Canute's folly, in setting bounds to the sea, v^as wisdom itself, compared with the so much greater folly of attempting to subjugate the moral forces. Now, tlie power which is, ever and anon, throwing up the slavery question into our un- willing and affrighted faces, is Truth. The passion- blinded and the infatuated may not discern this mighty agent. Nevertheless, Truth lives and reigns forever; and she will be, continually, tossing up unsettled ques- tions. We must bear in mind, too, that every question, which has not been disposed of in conformity with her requirements, and which has not been laid to repose THE NEBRASKA BILL. 115 on her own blessed bosom, is an unsettled question. Hence, slavery is an unsettled question; and must continue such, until it shall have fled forever from the presence of liberty. It must be an entirely unsettled question, because, not only is it not in harmony with truth, but there is not one particle of truth in it. Slavery is the baldest and biggest lie on earth. In reducing man to a chattel, it denies that man is man ; and, in denying, that man is man, it denies, that God is God— for, in His own image, made He man— the black man and the red man, as well as the white man- Distorted as are our minds by prejudice, and shrivelled as are our souls by the spirit of caste, this essential equality of the varieties of the human family may not be apparent to us all. Were we delivered from this prejudice, and this spirit, much of the darkness, which now obscures our vision, would be scattered. In pro- portion as we obey the truth, are we able to discern the truth. And if all, that is wrong within us, were made right, not only would our darkness give place to a cloudless light, but, like the angel of the Apocalypse, we should stand in the sun. But to my argument. I am opposed to the bill for organizing the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas, which has come to us from the Senate, because, in the first place, it insults colored men, and the Maker of all men, by limiting suffrage to white men. I am opposed to it, because, in the second place, it lunits suffrage to 116 THE NEBRASKA BILL. persons, who have acquired citizenship. The man, who comes to us from a foreign land, and declares his intentions to make his home among us, and acts in har- mony with such declaration, is well entitled to vote with us. He has given one great evidence of possess- ing an American heart, which our native could not give. For, whilst our native became an American by the accident of birth, the emigTant became one by choice. For, whilst our native may be an American, not from any preference for America, the emigrant has proved, that he prefers our country to every other. I am opposed to the bill, in the third place, because, it is so drawn, as to convey the deceptive idea, (I do not say intentionally deceptive,) that the bill recognizes the doctrine of non-intervention. I call it deceptive idea : for, in point of fact, the bill does not recognize the doctrine of non-intervention. It dictates to the territories the form of their government, and denies to them the appointing of their principal officers. The bill is, itself, therefore, the most emphatic intervention. One hundi^edth as much intervention on the part of the Federal Grovernment with a State Government would be condemned as outrageous and intolerable interven- tion. But I must be frank, and admit, that, if the bill did really recognize the doctrine of non-intervention, I should still be opposed to it — ay, and for that very rea- son. Tliis whole doctrine of Congressional non-inter- THE NEBRASKxV BILL. 117 vention witli our territories I regard as perfectly absurd. Congressional intervention witli them is an imperative and unavoidable duty. Tbe reasoning to this end is simple and irresistible. Tlie people of the United States acquire a territory. Being theirs, they are re- sponsible for its conduct and cbaracter :— and, bemg thus responsible, they ^ not only have the right, but are absolutely bound, to govern the territory. So long as the territory is theirs, they can no more abdicate sov- ereignty over it than a State can abdicate sovereignty over one of its counties. But the people of the United States govern through Congress ; and, hence, in respect to what is the people's there must be Congressional in- tervention. In the nature of the case, this must be so. But the Constitution also shoves, that it must be so. The Constitution declares the fact of the government of the Nation by itself; and it also recognizes the fact of the government of a State by itself But, nowhere, does it so much, as hint at the government of a territory by itself On the contrary, it- expressly subjects the re- gulation or government of territories, to Congress, or, in other words, to the whole people of the United States. I add, incidently, that, in the light of the fact of the American people's responsibility for the conduct and character of tlieir territories, it is absurd to claim, that New-Mexico and Utah are to be exempt from slavery, because the Mexican Government had abolished slavery. 118 THE NEBRASKA BILL. Whether there can be legal slavery in those territories turns solely on the chara.cter of the Constitution — turns solely on the question, whether that paper is anti-slavery or pro-slavery. Again, in the light of this same flict, we see how absurd it is to claim, that there could, under the continued force of the French or Spanish laws, be slavery in the territory of Louisiana, after we had ac- quired it. If, after such acquisition, there was, or could be, legal slavery in the territory, it was solely because the Constitution — the only law, which then attached to the territory — authorized it. What, if when we had acquired the territory, there had been in it, among the creatures of French, or S23anish, or other law, the sut- tee, or cannibalism — would it not have been held, that these abominations were repugnant to the Constitution, and, therefore, without legal existence ? Certainly. I spoke of the Constitution, as the only law, which attaches to our territories. I was justified in this, be- cause it is the only law of the people of the United States, when they are taken as a whole, or a unit. AYhen regarded in sections, they have other laws also. The people of a State have the laws of their State, as well as the laws of their ISTation. But, I repeat it, the peo- ple of the United States, when viewed as one, have no other law than the Constitution. Their CongTCSs and Judiciary can know no other law. The statutes of the one and the decisions of the other must be but applica- tions and interpretations of this one organic law. THE NEBRASKA BILL. 119 Another incidental remark, is, tliat it is wrong to charge the opponents of this bill with denying and dis- honoring the doctrine of " popular sovereignty." Hold- ing, as we do, that to the people — the whole people — of the United States belong both the lands and the sove- reignty of their territories, we insist, that to shut them out from governing their territories, would be to deny and dishonor the doctrine of "popular sovereignty." It is the friends of the bill, who, provided it is, as they claim, a bill for non-intervention, that are to be charged with violating the doctrine of " popular sovereignty," and the principles and genius of democracy. I close, under this head, with saying, that should real non-in- tervention obtain in regard to these territories, it would be a very great and very astonishing change from our present policy. The inhabitants of a territory have no vote in Congress. Nevertheless, real non-intervention would vest them with the exclusive disposal of import- ant affairs, which are, now, at the exclusive disposal of Congress. It would compensate them for their present political disabilities with an amount of political power greatly exceeding that enjoyed by an equal handful of the people of a State. To prevent misapprehension of my views, I add, that I am not opposed to making inhabitants of the territory officers of the territory. As far as practicable, I would have none others for its officers. But, whilst the ter- ritory is the nation's, all its ofi&cers should be acknow- l':deed to bo officers and servants of the nation. 120 * THE NEBRASKA BILL. I proceed to say, that I am opposed to tliis bill, in tlie fourth place, because it looks to the existence of slavery in these territories, and provides safeguards for it. In other words. Congress does, by the terms of the bill, open the door for slavery to enter these territories. The right of Congress to do so I deny. I deny it, how- ever, not because the compromise of 1820 denies it. Believing that compromise to be invalid, I cannot hon- estly claim anything under it. I disclaim all rights under it, for the simple reason, that a compromise con- ceived in sin and brought forth in iniquity, can impart no rights — for the simple reason, that a compromise, which annihilates rights, can not create rights. I admit, that the compromise of 1820 concedes the indestructi- bleness of manhood north of the line of 36° 30', except- ing in Missouri. But, on the other hand, it atones for this concession to truth and justice by impliedly leaving men south of that line, and in Missouri, to be classed with brutes and things. I admit, too, that they, who are enjoying the share of slavery under this compro- mise, and who, now, that freedom was about to enter into the enjoyment of her share under it — I admit, I say, that they are estopped from joining me in pronouncing the Missouri compromise invalid. They must first sur- render their share under the compromise — they must first make restitution to Freedom — ere they can, with clean hands and unblushing faces, ask her to forego the enjoyment of her share. " But this condition is imprac- THE NEBRASKA BILL. 121 ticable I" will some of my hearers say. Oh, no ! nothing is impracticable, that is right. Exclude slavery from Missouri and Arkansas for thirty-four years ; and then freedom and slavery will be on an equal footing, and they can make a new bargain. [Laughter.] Nor do I deny the right of Congress to open the door for slavery into these territories, because the compromise of 1850 virtually denies it. I say that compromise vir- tually denies it, because it distinctly and approvingly recognizes the compromise of 1820. The compromise of 1850 is as rotten as the compromise of 1820 ; and as incapable of imparting rights. And here let me say, that I rejoice to see the pro-slavery party pouring ex- press contempt on the compromise of 1820, and virtual contempt on the compromise of 1850. And why should not all men pour contempt upon these compromises, and upon all other compromises, which aim '' to spht the difference" between God and the devQ ? [Great laugh- ter.] By the way, we have striking proof, in the in- stance of this bill, that, in the case of such compromises, God's share and all are, in the end, very like to be clahned for the devil. [Renewed laughter.] I have said on what grounds it is not, that I deny the right of Congress to open the door for slavery into these territories. I will now say on what groimd it is. I deny it on the ground, that the Constitution, the only law of the territories, is not in favor of slavery, and that slavery cannot be setup under it. If there can be law- 6 122 THE InEBHASKA BILL. ful slavery in tlie States, nevertheless there cannot be in the territories. In the fifth and last place, I am opposed to the bill, because it allows, that there may be slavery in the States, which shall be formed from these territories. Hitherto, when the slavery question has been brought up in Congress, it has been alleged, (I say not how truly or untruly,) that the anti-slavery party has brought it up, and for the purjDOse of checking slavery. But now, it is, confessedly on all hands, brought up by the pro-slavery party, and for the purpose of extending slavery. In this instance, the pro-slavery party is, manifestly, the instrument, which truth has wielded to subserve her purpose of reawakening the public mind to the demands and enormities of slavery. Most sin- cerely do I rejoice, that the pro-slavery party is respon- sible for the present agitation. A Member. I do not admit, that it is. Mr. Smith. Strange ! Here is a movement for the immense extension of slavery. Of course, it is not the work of the anti-slavery party. And if the honor- able member, who has just interrupted me, is author- ized to speak for the pro-slavery party, it is not the work of that party either. I took it for granted, that the pro-slavery party did it. But, it seems it did not. It puts on the innocent air of a Macbeth, and looks me in the face, and exclaims : '' Thou canst not say I did THE NEBEASKA BILL. 12 52 SPEECH OX THE PACIFIC RAILEOAD. vote against granting such lielp to tlie Wisconsin rail- road. This is a good occasion for me to say, that Govern- ment should have the confidence of all its subjects ; and that, in order to have this confidence, it must be impartial with them all ; and that, in order to be impar- tial with them all, it must not mix itself up with the particular concerns of any. I would add, under this head, that I do not forget, that, by the provisions of this bill, the whole road may, ultunately, be owned by State Governments. But my objections to such ownership are as decided as to the ownership of the road by the Federal Government. I hold, that not the Federal Government only, but the State Government also, is unfit for such ownership; and that Civil Government is perverted, when brought into such connections. 3. Another ohjection to the huiMing of this road hy Gov- ernment is, that the patronage and power of Government ivoidd he greatly increased thereby. The present amount of Government patronage and power is deeply corrupting both to Government and people. But for Government to have the projDosed connection with the road to the Pacific, would greatly increase this patronage, this power, and this corruption. What I have here said regarding patronage is not intended to apply to the present any more than to other Administrations. I know not, that the present SPEECH ON THE PACIFIC RAILEOAD. 253 Administration is more faulty tlian others, in this respect. 4. Let Government build this road^ and there loill he no assignable limits to its future departure from its own province, arid to its future invasion of the province of the people. The building of this road by Government would be an irresistible precedent for every other gigantic work, and every other profuse expenditure, at the hands of Government. What railroad, what canal, would Gov- ernment then shrink from building? "What conquest would it feel itself to be too feeble to achieve? ISTay, what conception of national glory would be too vast or visionary for Government then to undertake to realize? Perhaps, by that time, a hundred millions of dollars would not be regarded as an extravagant endowment for a national school with a branch in each State. And, after such an endowment, what would be thought more fit than to invest so great and glorious a Government, as ours would then be, with the care of the Church ? And, surely, the national church of great America should not be eclipsed by the national church of little Judea. A tithe of the products of our broad land would no more than suffice for the splendors of our national church. Let not the idea be scouted, that the American Government can ever run into such extrava- gance and ursurpation. If our people are so foohsh, as to let Government run at all bevond its legitimate 254 SPEECH ON THE PACIFIC RAILROAD. limits, thej may soon find, tliat it will run indefinitely beyond tliem ; and that, in tLe end, it will be impossi- ble to erect an insurmountable barrier against tbe usurper. 5. Tlie vast expenditure of Government in huilding this road, and in doing what else that expenditure would lead to, would fasten upon the nation the cruel and oppressive tariff system. This result accomplished, and then farewell to all our hopes of a frugal and honest Government: — ^for no Government will be either frugal or honest, that is not held closely responsible for its exjDcnditui'es ; and no Government will be so held, until the burden of its expenditures shall rest upon the people, in the form of direct taxation. And when the tariff system is fastened upon us, then farewell also to all oui- hopes of a Gov- ernment, that shall bear lightly on the poor; for the efiect of the tariff system is to burden the poor — the masses of the consumers — with the support of Govern- ment, and to let the riches of the rich escape taxation. I am far from saying, that this is the policy of the sys- tem and the intent of its advocates. On the contrary, I am free to admit, that its advocates are as upright and as kind-hearted as its opponents. E'evertheless, the wrong, which they inflict, is none the less grievous because of their honesty and benevolence. I do not say, that the instance, can never occur in vfhich Government wo^ild be justified in helping to SPEECH ON THE PACIFIC EAILKOAD. 255 sastain some of the pursuits of its subjects, and in pro- tecting from overwhelming foreign competition some of the modes of their industry. Such an instance might possibly occur, under an impending war. But the end should be attained, not by tariffs, but by boun- ties — by bounties produced by assessments on property or ability, rather than by tariffs, which tax consumption and poverty. 6. The last objection to huilding the road hy Govern- ment with ivhich I shall iveary the Committee, is, that it would prepare the loay for rolling up a debt against the nation so great, as to make the Government strong beyond the control of the nation. The doctrine may be paradoxical, that a great debt against a nation makes its Government strong. It is, nevertheless, true, that whilst the nation is weak in proportion to its debt, its Government is strong in that proportion. It is not even the owners of the debt, that constitute the strongest party. It is the power, that collects the debt — the principal and interest, or either — that is the strongest. But Government is this power, and therefore its fearful strength, where the national debt is great. The debt, which a nation owes, is a mortgage on the whole of its wealth and industry. All the persons employed in collecting it are servants of the Government, and all the power wielded to col- lect it is power of the Government ; as fully so, as if Government jvere the creditor of the nation, as well as 256 SPEECH ON THE PACIFIC EAILEOAD. tlie collector of tlie debt. Our own nation, in order to fall under tlie tyranny of its Government, as extensively as tlie nations of Euroj^e have fallen under tlieirs, miglit, indeed, need to undergo several other changes ; but the principal change would consist in its coming under as great a bui^den of debt, as presses upon those nations. I must bring my remarks to a close. The passion of every people has been for a great and glorious Grovern- ment. Their pride has been in their Government, and hence theu' ruin. Would that the American people might become so wise, as to see, that it is to the reproach of human nature, or rather of perverted and fallen human nature, that any ci\dl government is necessary. Would that, instead of feeling pride in even the best civil government, they might feel shame in the necessity, which exists for any. Think not, because I spoke as I did, a minute since, against the undue streng-th of Government, that I am in favor of a weak Government. That was a strength acquired in the perverted uses of Government. I would have Government strong — ^far stronger than the world has ever seen it. But the strength, with which I would clothe it, would be all acquired in its right uses. In a word, I would have Government strong in the never-failing principle of justice — strong in the devotion of both itself and its subjects to that principle. And, althono'li I would not have it meddle with the work of SPEECH ON THE PACIFIC RAILKOAD. 257 its subjects, I vfould, nevertheless have it, hke the gov- ernment of Heaven, continually round about them. Its sleepless care and its effectual shield should be ever over them — over them, when they go to their fields and to their shops, and over them when they go to their tables and to their beds. I would have ci^dl gov- ernment go with its subjects where they go, and lodge with them where they lodge. I had hoped, that my countrymen would never sink down into so degrading a relation to Government, as that, which is sustained by the people of other nations. I had hoped, that the wardship, tutelage, and bondage to Government, which characterize others, would never characterize them. But, perhaps, I shall find, that I was mistaken. Certain it is, that I shall strongly suspect that I was, if I find them in favor of having Government build, or ovv''n, this road. For the build- ing, or owning, of this road by Government cannot fail to contribute mightily toward creating and fixing as false and ruinous a relation between people and Gov- ernment in this country, as exists between people and Government in other countries. Here, then, on the brink of so great peril, let us pause to survey the peril. And more than that, let us here take our stand against it. Here, as the friends of popular rights against the encroachments of Govern- ment, let us firmly resolve, that, God helping us, these rights shall be fully maintained, and these encroacli- 258 SPEECH ox THE PACIFIC KAILEOAD. ments successfully resisted. Here let us firmly resolve, tliat, God lielping us, Grovernment shall not build nor own this road, neither absolutely nor conditionally, neither entirely nor partly. Here let us firmly resolve, that Government shall not pass this Eu.bicon. And here let the fervent prayer of all our hearts be, that the attempt to involve Government with this road shall be the effectual signal to rally the friends of popular rights, the whole country over, in defence of the people against the usurpations of Government. S PEEOH FOE. THE ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM. JUNE 15, 185 4. The bill and substitute (both, of whicL. were intro- duced by Mr. Olds, Chairman of tbe Committee on tlie Post-Of&ce and Post-Eoads) being under consideration, Mr. Smith presented tlie following amendment: And bs it further enacted^ That this act shall continue in force two years ; and that, at the expiration of that time, the Post-Office Department shall be abolished, and individuals and associations shall thereafter be as free to carry letters, as to carry any thing else. Mr. S]^riTH, then said — I wish, Mr. Speaker, to make an argument in sup- port of my amendment. I have read the bill, which the Chairman of the Committee on the Post-Ofl&ce and 2 (JO ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM. Post-Koads introduced ; and, also, the substitute, whicli lie introduced, and I am constrained to say, that I do not like either of them. I dislike both of them — and I do so, if for no other reason than that they both bear so much resemblance to the existing post-office laws. The Speaker. Will the gentleman from ISTew-York inform the Chair, whether he proposes to amend the original bill or the substitute ? Mr. Smith. I have no choice. Whichever the Chair shall think most proper, I shall be satisfied with. A Member. Apply it to each. Mr. Smith. Let my amendment be first to the original bill ; and then, if it fail in that mode, be to the substitute. [Laughter.] My first objection to these papers — for such I shall call the bill and substitute — ^is, that they both propose to retain the franking privilege. It is true, tha,t the substitute does not propose to retain it to the discredit of the Post-Office Department — or, in other words, as a charge uj)on that Department ; but, what is the same thing to the people, it proposes to retain it at the expense of the common Treasury. I am free to admit, that most members of Congress have to write more letters than they would have to, ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM. 261 were they not members of Congress. The difference would not be great, however, if the persons, who write to them, were compelled, as such persons should be, to pay postage on their letters ; and this difference would be still less, if such persons should, as all true gentle- men do, inclose stamps to pay the postage on the answers, in every case, where the correspondence is on the business of those, who originate it. Most of the letters, with which we are deluged, are too unimport- ant, and even frivolous, to have been written, had their writers been obliged to pay postage on them. And then, as to the speeches we send — the country would not perish, if they were not sent. Perhaps, indeed, it would not be essentially less enlightened. I apprehend, that, in the flood of speeches, which we pour over the land, there is quite as much of darkness, as of light. Of course, I would not speak disparagingly of my own speeches. [Laughter.] Every member will so far provide for his self-complacency, as to make, if not an express, at least a tacit exception, in behalf of his own speeches, whenever he is tempted to speak slightingijr of the mass of speeches. [Laughter.] But, I am willing to admit, that it may be proper to send off a limited number of our speeches, at the expense of Government, so far as the transportation is concern- ed. Hence, I am willing to have Government furnish each member of Congress with stamps, during his term, to the amount of, say, $300 or S400. These stamps 262 ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM, should be peculiar. They should be made to be used bj members of Congress only; and only in franking printed matter. Let the value of each frank be one cent, and let a single frank be sufficient to frank two ounces. The member of Congress, who should not wish to use all his stamps, would take pleasure in letting a fellow-member have the balance. Another objection, which I have to these papers, is not that they propose more than one rate of postage — but rather, that they do not propose more than two. Moreover, the higher of the two is of comparatively very little consequence. For ten years to come, forty- nine fiftieths of the letters would not be affected by the higher rate. In other words, not one letter in fifty would be charged with the ten cents rate of post- age. Then, these papers are unreasonable, in making distance the sole ground of difference in the rates of postage. Distance is but one, and it is far from being the most important one, of the grounds for such differ- ence. Density and sparseness of popula.tion ; facilities and non-facilities of carriage ; are much more import- ant considerations in authorizing and measuring such difference. Hence, then, although the existing post office laws provide for but one rate of joostage, and although there evidently should be more than one, nevertheless the papers before us are, even in this respect, hardly an appreciable improvement on those ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM. 263 laws, so ill-grounded and faulty is the liiglier rate of postage, which thej propose. To illustrate the error of these papers, in making mere distance the ground of difference, in rates of post- age : — they provide, that a letter from Boston to San Francisco shall be charged with ten cents ; and a letter from San Francisco to any post-office in the region of the Eocky Mountains with only five cents, according to one of the papers, and with only three cents, accord- ing to the other. But it may be worth three times as much to carry this letter Jfrom San Francisco, as that letter to San Francisco. Both, then, becaiise this higher rate of postage is to affect so small a proportion of the letters ; and because a rate of postage, founded on so insufficient a reason, must, if adopted, be very short-lived ; and, because, too, it seems well-nigh impossible, that it should be adopted ; I shall regard these papers, in the argument I am now making against them, as virtually proposing but one rate of postage. I have still another objection to these papers. It is my chief one. They would have Grovernment continue to be the mail-carrier. But I would have Government separated from such work, entirely and forever. I am in favor of breaking up the Post Office Department. I would have the people left as free to choose their own modes of carrying their letters, as to clioose their own modes of carrying their other property. Why should 264 ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM. Government carry the letters any more than the other property of the people? Again, if Grovernment may carry the property of the people, why not the persons of the people also ? — why not passengers as well as property ? Is it said, that letters, especially some of them, are very precious and im]30rtant, and that therefore the carrier of them should be highly trnst-worthy and responsible ? I admit it all ; and I hold, that this is a reason why the people should not be confined to one carrier, but should have a choice of carriers — ay, the widest range of selection. Happily for the people, they are not forbidden by Government to transmit money by express. They may choose between the express and the mail. And what does the choice, which they actually make, prove ? It proves that they prefer the express to the mail ; in other words, that the express is a more safe and suitable conveyance for money than the mail. It proves, too, that, in all probabiHty, the people would, were they not restricted to the mail, extensively adopt other modes of transmitting letters, as well as money. This monopoly of Government is aggravated by the fact, that Government disclaims all liability for dam- ages, arising from either the bad performance, or non- performance, of the work it has monopolized. Is it said, that speed and punctuahty are necessary m t!;e transmission of letters? They are. But this, ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM. 265 instead of being an argument against abolishing the Post Office Department, and against throwing open its work to the freest and widest competition, is a very strong argument for doing so. The motive for attain- ing speed and punctuality, in the case of such compe- tition, must be unspeakably stronger, and more effect- ual, than when, as now, there is no competition. It would be strange, indeed, if, under the pressure of unlimited rivalry, a greater than the present degi^ee of speed and punctuahty should not be attained. It would be strange, indeed, if the enterprise, sharp sight, and intense interest of individuals, and small associa- tions, should not accomplish the work with far greater speed and punctuality than characterize it in the hands of Government. It would be strange, indeed, if Gov- ernment — Government, that is so corpulent, so un- wieldy, so lazy, so blundering — should be found to be fitted to the work of carrying the mail. But, we are not left to mere theory in the case. The actual fact, that, here the mail is several hours, and, there several days, behind the express, is as glaring as the sun. Is it said, that it is important to have the rates of postage low? I admit it is. I admit, that, as in tlie case of commerce itself, so the more nearly commercial correspondence can be free, the better. And more eao-er am I to admit, that the commerce of the affec- tions, which is carried on in letters of friendship and 12 266 ABOLITION OF THE POSTAIi SYSTEM. love sliould be but ligiitly taxed. These admissions, however, make nothing against my doctrine, that Gov- ernment is not fit to be the carrier of letters. On the contrary, Government must cease to be the carrier, ere we can have, or, to speak more safely, ere we can be entitled to have, cheap postage either on land or sea — either "ocean penny postage," (two cents;) or any other demanded reduction of postage. We are not entitled to cheap postage, at the expense of the common Treasury. There is not one good reason, why the carrying of letters should be a charge on the common Treasury — a charge on the whole people. There is not one good reason why they, who have but little to do with letters should be taxed to make the transmis- sion of them cheap to those, who have much to do with letters. Again, there is not one good reason why they, whose letters can be carried at half the cost, at which the letters of others are carried, should be compelled to pay as high rates of postage, as others. The argument for carrying the mail, at the expense of the common Treasury, founded on the fact, that our naval and mihtary operations are also at such expense, is as superficial and fallacious, as it is plausible and current. It is absolutely astonishing, that so many wise men use this argument. In turning mail-carrier, Government goes entirely out of the province of Gov- ernment ; goes out of it to perform an unnecessary service ; find to perform it for but a portion of its sub- ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM. 267 jects. On the other hand, the preparation and employ- ment of force are strictly within the province of Gov- ernment ; are not only a legitimate, but a necessary work ; are for the protection of all, and not a part only, of its subjects ; and are for that protection equally in the case of all. I have, virtually, said, that, so long as Government is the mail-carrier, the rates of postage must be high, in order, that they may cover the whole cost of carry- ing the mail. Indeed, the papers before us do, in the changes which they propose, admit, that a self-support- ing mail, if carried by Government, must be a dear mail. Just here, however, the c[uestion very properly arises, whether, if the transmission of letters is thrown open to the enterprise and rivalry of individuals and associations, the rates of postage will be lower. That they will be much lower, in the case of the great ma- jority of letters, is as certain, as that the cost of the transmission will, in that event, be much less. Who, that has marked the difference between the carelessness and clumsiness of Government on the one hand, and the vigilance and alertness of individuals and small associations on the other ; between, for instance, the slow and dear jDrocess of building railroads and canals, and ships, by Government, and the speed and cheap- ness with which private enterprise builds them ; can, for a moment, doubt, that the cost of carrying letters, is twice as great, when Government is the carrier, as it 268 ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM. would be, were tliey carried by individuals and small associations ? But if this work is tliro\Yn open to un- limited competition, then, as all experience, in like cases, proves, the cost of the work will regulate the pay exacted for it : or, in other words, the rates of postage on letters will be according to the expense of carrying them. It is safe to say, that, in such event, the rate of postage on half the single letters would not exceed one cent. On a portion of the remaining half, it would be two cents : on a much smaller portion, two or three tirdes two cents : and on a comparative few, a part of whom, it must be remembered, are not reached by the present Post-Office accommodations, three or four, or ever five or six times two cents. It is argued, that the rates of postage should be uni- form, throughout the whole length and breadth of the nation. But, why should they be ? They cannot be, but at the expense of great and glaring injustice. Two brothers reside in New-England. One of them says : " I will continue to reside in New-England. It is true, that my rent, and fuel, and bread, are dear ; but my merchandise is cheap, because it is subjected to so light a charge of transportation, and, ere long, the postage on letters, through every part of railroad-laced JSTew- Bngland, will be very small." The other brother says : '' I will remove to Nebraska. It is true, that a home, in a new country, has its disadvantages and trials. But land and fuel are cheap there ; and my bread there ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM. 269 will soon be cheap, because I shall soon grow it. As to merchandise, too — who knows but G-overnment will, ere long, be so consistent with itself, as to carry tliat, as well as letters, all over the countrj^ ? and at the same charge for all distances, short or long ?" Now, would it be right for Grovernment to realize this anticipation of the Nebraska brother, and to turn carrier of mer- chandise, as well as letters ? and on such absurd terms, too? No — all admit, that it would be wrong, very wrong, very oppressive. It is worth, say, ten cents, to carry a barrel of rice from Baltimore to Washington ; fifty cents from Baltimore to Pittsburgh ; one dollar from Baltimore to Chicago ; and three dollars from Baltimore to Nebraska. Now, it would be bad enough for Government to monopolize the carrying of rice ; but, far worse, to have only one price — a mean or average price ; and to charge, ssij, one dollar for carry- ing the barrel to Washington and Pittsburgh, as well as to Chicago, and only one dollar for carrying it to Nebraska. Such a bringing of prices to one level would be oppressive to the people of Pittsburgh ; far more so to the people of Washing1;on ; and it would be doing a favor to the people of Nebraska, at the expense of all equity and justice. And, yet, if Government requires the Nebraska brother to pay no higher rates of postage on Nebraska letters than it requires the New-England brother to pay on New-England letters, why, in the name of consistency, should it not make 270 ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM. the transportation of other property as cheap to the Nebraska as to the New-England brother ? Can any tell me, why ? Is it said, that the Nebroska brother should be favor- ed, because he has to encounter the hardships of mak- ing a home in the \Vilderness ? I anticijDated and replied to this objection, in my reference to the advan- tages, as well as disadvantages, of such a home ; and in my reference to the disadvantages, as well as advan- tages, of a home in a long-settled section of the country. Moreover, it was because he saw, that the disadvan- tages of his new home would be overbalanced by its advantages, that he concluded to emigi-ate. Hence, he is not an object for partiality to expend itself upon — certainly, not for the partiality of Government. Grov- ernment is to be impartial, always, and with all. Gov- ernment has no gifts to make — even to the most needy : no favors to show — even to the most deserving. I do not deny, that help is often due from the rich and densely-peopled East to the poor and thinly-peopled West. But it is not due from Government. It is due from men to their feUow-men ; and is to be paid, with- out the intervention of Government. The deep sense of such obligation has been already expressed in the bestowment of millions upon schools and churches. I would add, under this head, that it is far from certain, that, were the carrying of the mails left to private enterprise, the people of our new settlements ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM. 271 would have to pay higher rates of postage, than they will have to pay, if Government contniues to be the mail-carrier. For, first, if we are to continue to have so unfit, and so expensive a carrier of the mail, the rates of postage must necessarily be increased, and greatly increased. Second, the constantly and rapidly swelling deficit in the Post-Office Department is abeady so great, as to make it necessary to refuse to establish post-oflaces, which will not, in all probability, be self- supporting. Third, if the delivery of a letter, mailed to, or from, our most inaccessible settlements, should cost so unsuitable a carrier, as Government, twenty cents, it, nevertheless, would not cost a suitable carrier ten cents. There is another objection to my argument against uniform rates of postage. It is, that such uniformity operates as much in favor of the densely-peopled East, as of the sparsely-peopled West ;— as much, for in- stance, in favor of the New-England as the Nebraska brother. It will be said, that if the Nebraska brother pays but three cents on the letter he receives from his New-England brother, the New-England brother, in turn, has to pay but three cents on the letter he re- ceives from his Nebraska brother. It is true, that if his only correspondence were with his Nebraska broth- er, the New-England brother would not be so much wronged by uniform rates of postage. But, as a gene- 272 ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM. ral thing, more tlian three fourths of the correspondence of a N^ew-England man is with persons of New-Eng- land : and, hence, the charges on the great mass of his letters should be regulated, not bj what it may cost to carry letters through the wilderness, and u]3on the bad roads of Nebraska, but upon the good roads of culti- vated New-England. Is it honest to compel one man to pay another man's postage ? Is it honest to compel one State to pay another State's postage ? The Northern States do, to a great extent, pay the postage of the Southern States. Slavery is said to be the cause of this wrong. I am aware that slavery is fruitful of wrongs. Perhaps, this is one of them. I will pass no opinion on this point, just now. I will leave each one to make up his own opinion upon it, in the light of the facts of the case. Indeed, there is an especial reason why it does not become me to be finding fault with slavery. For, if we may beheve the newspapers, (and we all know; that newspaper is only another name for truth,) I am now a pro-slavery man. My going to bed, as calm as usual, that night, when the final vote on the Nebraska bill was to be staved off by a ceaseless round of cunningly- devised yeas and nays, was fatal to all my Abolition fame. My former honors are now worn by others — by others, who kept awake for liberty, during all the long and weary hours of that memorable night. Surely, ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM. 273 surely, if I liave, as the newspapers say, become '' a good national," and am on the eve of embarking in "the purcbase of negroes," I ougbt to be cbary of my words against slavery. [Laughter.] Yery unseemly, very unnatural, would it be for a young convert to speak reproacbfally of the idol of bis new faitb. But, to return from tbis digression. I was saying, tbat tbe JSTortbern States have to pay mucb of tbe postage of tbe Southern. While, in the free portion of tbe nation, tbe postage exceeds the expenditure, in tbe slave por- tion tbe expenditure exceeds the postage ; and that, too, by tbe great sum of $1,811,907.* FREE. * Postage collected in year ending June 30, 1853. EonpenditnTe in year ending June 30, 1S53. Maine $125,194 $112,654 New-Hampshire 81,703 67,310 Vermont . 78,638 96,860 Massachusetts . 453,966 294,366 Ehocle-Island 47,377 30,817 Connecticut 146,364 121,365 New-Tork 1,175,516 829,421 . New-Jersey 89,074 109,913 Pennsylvania 488,308 414,043 Ohio 375,759 531,392 Michigan . 96,757 182,872 Indiana 137,339 174,351 IlHnois 175,346 264,223 Iowa 40,980 55,335 Wisconsin 73,570 78,606 California . 123,152 242,043 Oregon 9,797 52,282 Minnesota 3,529 3,848 $3,722,369 $3,661,701 Surplus. $00. f .GS. 1 .,■'•■ [o;v/-.] 274 ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM. Most heartily, Mr. Chairman, do I rejoice, tliat our post-office sliip has run ashore. As mj amendment shows, I am willing to have it so far patched up, that it may be kept at sea a couple of years longer, whilst other and fit craft is made ready to take its place. After that, let the poor broken thing be left to lie on . Postage collected Expenditure in year ending in year ending SLA"VT:. June 30, 1S53. J ice 30, 1S53. Delaware .... $16,310 $16,357 Maryland 152,158 239,953 District of Columbia 37,832 33,006 Yirginia .... 183,472 398,769 North-Carolina 60,751 204,806 South-Carolina 82,985 157,573 Georgia 142,800 279,441 Florida 16,878 45,950 Alabama . 96,091 223,620 Mississippi 73,108 151,422 Arkansas 25,105 103,692 Texas 47,164 161,149 Tennessee 85.701 134,909 Kevitucky 112,542 191,114 Missouri 98,781 188,041 Louisiana 128,170 141,953 $1,359,848 $2,671,755 Deficiency, 1,311,907. rNCERTAIN -WHETHER TO BE FREE OR SLATE. New-Mexico Utah Nebraska $517 955 $1,472 Deficiency, $22,323. Total of deficiency in Post-Office Department, for year ending June 30. 1853. nsid:^ from ocean mail service, $1,27.3.562. ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM. 275 shore — a wreck to admonish the people, so long as it shall lie rotting there, of the folly of permitting Gov- ernment to be the carrier of their letters and papers. "Now is the time for the people to determine to take into their own hands their own work of carrying their own letters and papers. Am I asked, how — ^by what means — ^the people can do this work ? I answer, that is none of onr business. It is no more our business — the business of Government — to make this inquiry, than it would be to inquh'e, how the people could build their roads and" canals, and manage their schools and churches, without the intervention of Government. Government is to leave the people to do their own work, in their own way — ^be that way the best or the worst. That the people's way for carrying their own letters and papers would, however good or bad, be far better than the way, in which meddling, usurping Government has done it, there is not the least reason to doubt. Perhaps, I shall be told, that the people will not con- sent to pay, in any cases, higher rates of postage than they now pay — no, not even if they are recompensed fourfold for it by less rates of postage in the great ma- jority of cases. Perhaps, I shall be told, that, rather than have the rates of postage different for different distances, or for any other cause, the people will prefer to have the Government continue to be the mail-carrier, and that, too, even though the Post-Ofiice Department 276 ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM. shall continTie to sink deeper and deeper in debt. But the people are not so blind to tlieir own interests, as not to see, tliat tlie losses of tbe Post-Of6.ce Department are the losses of the Treasury ; and that the losses of the Treasury are the losses of themselves. Nor are the people so perverse and suicidal as to array them- selves, dehberately and perseveringly, against their own interests. Thrice welcome to my whole heart would be the breaking up of the Post-Ofl&ce Department! Not merely, however, nor even mainly, however, because I desire a reform in the Government, at that point. It is true, that I do deeply desire this particular reform, for its own sake. Nevertheless, my deep desire for it is chiefly because it would lead the way to numerous wise, and wide, and radical reforms in the theories and practices of Civil Government ; and, thereby, do much toward bringing forward the day, when Civil Govern- ment shall be confined to its sole, legitimate province of protecting persons and property. The Post-Of&ce Department broken up — and there would, then, be no frankiag privilege. In this wise, the people would be saved much more than a million of dollars a year. According to some estimates, more than even two millions, a year. It may be well for me to say here, that, even were the mail taken out of the hands of Government, I would still be willing to have Government go to the expense of sending a limited ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM. 277 amount of printed matter, at tlie liands of members of Congress. Of course, it could not, in that event, be done in tlie way suggested at tlie beginning of my re- marks. But wbat tlie franking privilege costs would not be tbe wbole amount, that tbe people would save by the breaking up of tbe Post-Office Department. Including wbat was paid to ocean mail steamers, tbe Post-Office Department cost the people for the year ending last June, nearly $3,000,000. The cost for the year ending the present June, will exceed the sum of $3,500,000; and it is estimated, that the Post-Office Department will, in the year ending next June, load the people with the loss of $4,000,000. Will the peo- ple be patient imder these enormous, and rapidly in- creasing, losses? They will not be. And they will not be patient with the present Congress, if we do not, and that, too, before the close of the present session, provide for the speedy termination of these losses. To protect myself from misapprehension, I would disclaim all imputation of mismanagement in the Post- Office Department. I presume, that it is as well man- aged, at the present time, as it ever was. I beheve, that they, who have the control of it, are upright and able men. But the Post-Office Department is itself a wrong: — and, therefore, every administration of it must, necessarily, be a wrong — ^because every adminis- tration of it, however able or well-intended, must par- 278 ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM. take of the inlierent wrong of that, which is adminis- tered. Again, the Post-Office Department broken up — and there would be no more making of books bj Govern- ment. In this wise, too, the people would be relieved of another great tax. There is no danger, that there will not be books enough. There will still be enough books made, even if Government should make none. Let Government throw open the Patent Office, and the Coast Survey Office, and other offices, to persons who collect materials for book-making ; and such books, as Government, now, loads the mail with, and scatters among those who do not, one in three, read them, will be pubhshed at half to three fourths of the expense, at which they are now published : and, moreover, they will get into the hands of those who will read them — for, it may be presumed, that they, who go to the ex- pense of buying their books, will read them. But the saving of money to the people by the break- ing up of the Post-Office Department will be of little account, compared with the saving, by that means, of both Government and people from no small amount of corruption. There are more than twenty-three thous- and post-offices. The postmasters, their deputies and clerks, must altogether number more than fifty thou- sand. It is, of course, expected, that they shall all wear the livery of the Administration ; and, alas, too large ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM. 279 a share of them feel themselves irresistibly tempted to falfil the expectation! Then, connect with this patron- age the negotiations for mail contracts, and all the powers and influences incidental to the Post-Office Department, and it will be strange, indeed — nay, inex- pressibly honorable to human nature — if an immense and ever-swelling tide of corruption should not attend upon the organization and operations of that Depart ment. But it will be said, that the individuals and associa- tions, that would take the place of Government, in carrying the mail, would be as corrupt and corrupting in the work, as Government is. Admit, that they would be as corrupt — nevertheless they could not be as corrupting. The corrupting power of individuals and associations is as nothing, compared with that of Gov- ernment. For, whilst Government remains pure, it will be both disposed and able to control guilty individuals and associations. But when Government itself has yielded to corruption, the restraining barriers are bro- ken down, and all is in danger of being lost. I must close. I have not said all, that I intended to say. But, as the remainder of our session may be very short, so we must make our speeches short. K this Congress would do a better thing than any Con- gress has ever done, let it declare, that the Post-Office Department shall, at the end of two years, cease to exist; and shall then give place to such machinery, ai? 280 ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM. the people shall select and employ ; and to as perfect freedom, on tlie pa-rt of the people, to carry their let- ters in what way they ^yill, as they now exercise in carrying their beef, and pork, and flour, and them- selves. What I have said is in harmony with the amendment, which I sent to the Clerk's desk. I cannot be ignorant, that many, who hear me, will believe that my amend- ment will be unpopular in some quarters, especially in the new and scantily peopled portions of the country. But I am, yet, to be convinced, that it will be unpopular, even there. I am, yet, to be convinced, that so just and wise a measure, as the abolition of the Post-Of&ce De- partment, will work loss to any portion of the country. A monopoly in the hands of a Democratic Govern- ment ! — copied, in the ignorant infancy of that Govern- ment, from monarchy and despotism ! at war with the whole genius and framework of that Government ! — tell it not, that any section, or any worthy interests, of our people can be injured by the abolition of a so entirely misplaced usurpation ! I will admit, however, for the sake of the argument, that my proposition is unpopular. Hai^pily for me, I have no popularity to jeopard. I belong, as I said, in this place, a few months ago, to a sohtary party ; or, if the honorable gentleman from JSTorth-Carolina [Mr. Clingman] will permit me to say so, to that dual party, composed of himself and myself [Laughter.] But, ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM. 281 thougli I have no popularity to jeopard, nevertlieless, many wlio hear me have. I hope, however, that they T\all not allow themselves to be trammeled by it, on this occasion. I hope, that they will remember, that justice is more important than popularity, and that he, who honors the demands of justice, will acquire an in- creasing and enduring respect, which is infinitely more valuable than any popularity, and especially, than that vulgar and mushroom popularity, which is the poor pay for trampling on justice. SPEECH ON SUPPLYING THE CITY OF WASHINGTON WITH WATER. JUNE 2 4, 185 4. Me. Chandler, of Pennyslvania, liad offered an amendment to tlie Civil and Diplomatic Bill, providing for an expenditure of five Imndred thousand dollars to continue tlie aqueduct for bringing water into tlie City of "Wasliington. Mr. Stephens, of Georgia, moved and advocated an increase of one liundred thousand dollars. Mr. Smith replied as follows : The honorable gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Ste- phens] said, "Go on!" I say, stop! I have not risen to oppose this plan, or to advocate any other. I have nothing to say in disparagement of deri\dng the water from the Potomac; and nothing to say in praise of deriving it from Eock Creek. I am opposed to the 284 SPEECH ON SUPPLYING THE CITY execution by the Government of any plan, whatever, for supplying this city with water. In my judgment, sir, we are on the threshold of a vast expenditure of money. Government had better retrace its steps than go forward. K it goes for- ward, it will find itself involved, not. only in a great loss of money, but in difficulties that will call for legislation, and that will consume much of the costly time of Con- gress. And that it will find its execution of the work the occasion of no little corruption to itself and to others, is what all experience in such matters teaches us to expect. This work can be done, and be kept in repair, by individual enterprise, at one half the expense it would be to Government. Why, then, should it not be intrusted to individual enterprise? Let Government offer half a million, or, if proper, a million of dollars, to the responsible association that shall undertake to sup- ply the city with water, and the offer will be promptly accepted. But it is said, that there is not enterprise enough among the people of this city to get up such an association — not wealth enough to accomplish the object of it. I think better, however, than this of both the enterprise and abihty of the people of Washington. But if they either will not, or cannot, do the work, there are Yankees enough who will ; and not only Yan- kees enough, but people enough in every part of the country, who will do it. OF WASHINGTON WITH WATER. 285 Of course, I would liave Government requii'e, in return for its grant to the proposed association, the fullest liberty to use the water for all possible govern- mental purposes. And I would have Government prescribe the general plan of the work— at least, some of its main features. I hardly need say that I am willing, more than will- ing, to have Government pay for the water in full pro- portion to the value of its buildings and their precious contents, and to the value of its various great interests here, among which is the importance of preserving the health of its numerous servants collected here. Indeed, I would have Government bear rhore than such pro- portion of the expenses for the common welfare of the city. It is the misfortune of our nation that its capital is in the midst of a people who cannot be a self-subsist- ing people. To a great extent Government must ever carry and sustain the people of this city. I am not of the number of those who think it would have been unwise to estabhsh the capital in one of our great seats of commerce. A people who support them- selves arc quite as virtuous and intelhgent and safe a people as are they who lean largely upon others for their living. But it is said, that if Government does this work it will derive a great income from it. I do not beheve that it will derive any income from it. It will be too much out of harmony with its dignity for Government 286 SUPPLYING WASHINGTON WITH WATEFv. to be peddling water. If Government does tlie work, tlie people of tliis city will never be taxed for tbeir water. The wliole tax, in tliat case, will rest npon tlie vfliole people of tlie country. You might as well expect that Government should erect toll-gates on the bridges it owns around this city, and stop passengers for their pennies, as expect that it will descend to the little business of selling or leasing water. This city should be supplied with water, both abun- dantly and speedily ; and, as I have said, I am willing to have Government contribute liberally toward the expense of it; but its contribution must be in a way consistent with the of&ce of Government. Kot for the sake of doing any good may Government exceed its province. Government may do nothing that its citizens can do; least of all may it do anythmg that they can do better than it can. I love the city of Washington. I love it, because it was founded by the gTcatest of all great names. I love it, because it does itself wear that greatest name. I love it, because it is the capital of our nation — the seat of Government of our beloved country. I love it for its great natural beauty, that marks every part of this broad and magnificent amphitheater ; and all the more do I love it because this beauty is heightened by the embellishments of art. It is true there are two plague-spots upon its health — ^two blemishes and blots upon its beauty — [Here the hammer fell.] SPEECH ON THE MEXICAN TREATY AND "MOMOE DOCTRffiE." JUNE 2 7, 185 4. The bill to enable the President to fulfil the third article of the Treaty between the United States and the Mexican EepubUc, being under consideration, Mr. Smith said: Mr. Chairman: Until yesterday, when I heard the distinguished gentlemen from Missouri and Virginia, [Mr. Benton and Mr. Bayly,] I had not intended to say one word on the subject before the Committee. I listened with great interest to their noble speeches, and was instructed by them. Nevertheless, my own views did not entirely harmonize with the coui'se of argu- ment pursued by either of those gentlemen. I am happy, Mr. Chairman, in the opportunity, which you have now kindly afforded me, to express these views, 288 MEXICAN TEEATY AND "MONROE DOCTRINE." in the liglit of wliicli the vote, wliicli I am to give, will be judged. "The papers!" — "the papers!" have been, more or less, the burden of some of the speeches, which we have heard. Now, I do not sympathize with this con- cern, nor join in this call for the papers. I do not see, that we have any right to them, or anything to do with them. Had we undertaken to impeach the President for his connection with this treaty, then our interest in the papers respecting it would be pertinent. But that is what we have not, as yet, undertaken. This treaty, when approvingly and fully acted upon by the competent Mexican authorities and the Presi- dent and Senate of the United States, (and, for the sake of the argument, I will assume, that it has already been so acted upon,) becomes, by the admission of the Constitution itself, a "supreme law of the land," bind- ing upon our nation, and capable of being enforced against our nation by Mexico. It is equally such, whether it has our approbation, or disapprobation. Our approbation cannot give it legality. Our disap- probation cannot take away its legahty. The treaty is not a law, upon condition, that we assent to it. It is, already, a law — an u.nconditional, absolute law. All, that we have to do with the treaty, is either to obey its call upon us to vote money to Mexico ; or to dis- obey the call, and incur the great and fearful responsi- bility of treaty breakers — of law breakers. For one, MEXICAN TREATY AND "MONROE DOCTRINE." 289 I hold, that we may incur such responsibility, provided the amount of the money is grossly excessive — say several times as much, as it should be. Before I close, I will express my opinion on the reasonableness of the amount. Commanding as is a treaty between nations — solemn as is a "supreme law of the land," it may, nevertheless, be possible, that it is our duty to disobey this treaty, and to break this law. For we can suppose a case, in which it would be right to disobey, and set at naught, the most imposing and solemn enactment. I will suppose an extreme .case — since it is, after all, an extreme case, which best serves the purpose of establish- ing the fact, that there may be exceptions to the general rule. "What, if there were a congTessional statute, which, rivalling the wickedness of the mem- orable decree of Herod, requires all the children in this District, two years old and under, to be slain? Must the President obey, and enforce it? No! All admit, that, notwithstanding he is a coordinate branch of the law-making power, he must not obey, and enforce it. Commanding, as is the source of this stat- ute, and perfect as are its forms, he must refuse to honor it. High and authoritative, as is the statute, humanity is infinitely higher and more authoritative : and, hence, if he has to trample either one, or the other, under foot, it must be the statute, and not humanity. I said, that the treaty calls on us to vote money to Mexico. Now, I am not of the number of those, who 290 MEXICAN TEEATY AND '' MONBOE DOCTKINE." hold, tliat we are to disobey the call, because the Presi- dent had not apprised us of it, before the treaty was concluded. The Constitution does not require such, previous notice. Moreover, such previous notice might be the means of pubhcity, and thereby of defeat, to the negotiations. ISTor would I disobey the call, because of the pro\ision in the Constitution, which requires all bills for raising revenue, to originate in the House. For I do not believe, that this provision was intended to restrict, or qualify, the treaty-making power, lodged by the Constitution ia the President and Senate. To understand our duty, we must see what we get in exchange for the money we vote. If we find, that we get the worth of our money, or anywhere near the worth of our money, we are not to hesitate to vote the money. There are but two material things, that we get. One of these is our release from the eleventh article of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo — the article which, although so lightly spoken of by the honorable gentle- man from Missouri, [Mr. Benton,] does, nevertheless, make us liable, in some sense, and in some degTce, for Indian depredations upon the Mexicans. It is said, that our habilities in this article are too indefinite to create any obligations upon us. But I hold, that the more indefinite they are, the worse they are, and the more eager should we be to escape from them. To say, that they create no obhgations whatever upon us, MEXICAN TKEATY AND "MONROE DOCTRINE." 29i strikes me as very extravagant. For one, I sliould be wilKng, ay glad, to see our Government pay a con- siderable, tbongb not an unreasonable, smn to liberate "QS from tbe obligations of tbis article, whatever tbose obligations are. The other material thing, that we get by this treaty, is territory. This territory is valuable to us, because it is essential to the best railroad rou.te from the southern portion of our country to the Pacific. But though I would have our Grovernment do what it reasonably can to provide the South, as well as the centre, and the North, with the best railroad route to the Pacific, which the Maker of the earth has afforded, I must, nevertheless, insist, that Mexico, so far as she can fur- nish the ground, should be glad to furnish it, without price, if others will build the roads. But this territory is much more than we need for the routes of railroads. The more, however, the worse, said the honorable gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. Ben- ton,] and by a good story, told in his own happy way of telhng his good stories, he illustrated his position, that there are lands so poor, that to own them is to be impoverished, rather than enriched. But with all deference to that distinguished gentleman, who is even more full of learning and experience than he is of years, I am willing to admit, that the more land we get from Mexico, (by righteous means,) the better. I would. 292 MEXICAN TREATY AND "MONROE DOCTRINE. that the treaty gave us whole provinces ; yes, and even all Mexico. Poor Mexico needs to be brought under radically transforming influences. Indeed, she is perishing for the lack of them. It is for her life, that she cease to be an independent nation; and not only so, but, also, that she become a j)^^t of our nation. For, say what we will of its faults and crunes, (and I look with very great sadness of heart upon some of them,) our nation is the mightiest of all the civilizing and renovating agencies, that are at work in the world. And, again, is there not some danger, that Mexico, if not annexed to us, will pass under the wing of Spain, or of some other European nation? But, gentlemen will tell us, that the "Monroe doctrine" is an effectual shield from that danger. Suppose, Mr. Chairman, since we have, thus inci- dentally, stumbled upon the "Monroe doctrine," that we spend a few minutes upon it, and, therefore, a few minutes less upon the treaty. I am well aware, sir, in what admiration this doc- trine is held. It is glorified in this House, and glori- fied throughout the land. There is no greater pohti- cal heresy than to doubt its soundness. It is com- mended to us by the authority of the greatest names. ISTevertheless, it is not to authority that I would bow, but to truth; and, as I look upon the Monroe doctrine, it is utterly empty of truth, and full of arrogance and MEXICAN TREATY AND "MONROE DOCTRINE." '29o bravado. This doctrine is very palatable to our patriotism, inasmucli as it arrogates a very exalted 1 1 place and mission for our nation. It invests ns with the right of regulating the relations between the people of this hemisphere and the people of the other. It makes us, in a word, dictator of the whole earth. This doctrine is brave and defiant ; and it, therefore, gratifies our conceit of our courage and power. And, yet, sir, warmly as this doctrine is cherished by us, it seems to me, that we should be the last people on earth to admit the truth of any such doctrine. This doctrine is at fatal war with our corner-stone doctrine, that every people is at liberty to choose its own form of Government. For us to set up "the Monroe doctrine," is to turn our back upon the Decla- ration of Independence. It is to deny ; to live down; to lie down; our own fundamental principles. For us to refuse to other peoples and nations the right to separate from each other, as they please ; or unite with each other, as they please ; or change their forms of G-overnment, as they please ; is to be guilty of repeal- ing the principles, on which our own nation dehbe- rately founded itself. For us to restrict other Govern- ments, as "the Mom'oe doctrine" would restrict them, is, virtually, to ignore and deny the foundation and legitimacy of our own Government. But, sir, we are either ignorant of ourselves, or insin- cere. We would not approve — nay, we would not 29-i MEXiaVN TREATY AND " MOXROE DOCTRINE. abide — 'Hlie Monroe doctrine," were it applied to our- selves. Suppose our nation should, for any reasons wliatever, wish to blend itself with Great Britain, would it be restrained from doing so by its committal to " the Monroe doctrine?" Oh, no ! And yet, that wish would be directly in the face of " the Monroe doc- trine." Suppose Mexico and Brazil, hearing of this wish, should put their veto upon its indulgence. How quick would we scout the veto, and bid them mind their own business, whilst we minded ours? But if they have no right to forbid our fusion with Great Britain, pray, what right should we have to forbid the proposition of Hayti to join France, or Chili to join China, or, (most terrific of all terrific things, in the eyes of an AineTicaTL fiUhuster /) Cuba to join England? The truth is, that our rapid progress in population, wealth, and power, has made us forgetful of the equal rights of the nations of the earth. We are disposed to measure our rights by our prosperity ; and to dispa- rage the rights of others, in the degree, that their pros- perity falls short of our own. In our boundless self- conceit, our might, either already is, or is very soon to be, boundless. And, as is to be expected hi such a case, we are already acting on, if not in terms avowing, the maxim, that might makes right. It was in the proud and arrogant sphit of our coun- try — ^it was under the influence of the extravagant pre- tensions, with which she is bloated, that the Squier MEXICAN TREATY AND " MONROE DOCTRINE." 295 treaty was so mucli condemned, and tlie Hise treaty so mncli extolled, in tlie otlier wing of tlie Capitol, a year or two since. The Sqnier treaty admitted, that other nations of the earth might participate with ours in con- trolling the ship-canal between the Atlantic and the Pacific. But the Hise treaty claimed, that our nation, alone, is worthy of controlling it; that the nation, whose office is sole dictator of the whole earth, should be the sole keeper of that great gateway of all the nations, and should decide when, and on what terms, the ships of those nations might pass through it. It was, of course, taken for granted, that all the nations of the earth would be tame enough to acquiesce promptly in this, as well as all other claims of our assumed dictatorship. " I fix the chain to great Olympus' height, And the vast world hangs trembhng m my sight," are words quite too swollen for a nation — for any col- lection of mere men to use — however fitted they may be to the lips of a god. "The pride of thy heart," saith the prophet, "hath deceived thee, thou that dwellest in the clefts of the rock, whose habitation is high ; that saith in his heart, ' who shall bring me down to the ground? ' Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the Lord." 296 MEXICAN TEEATY AND " MONEOE DOCTEINE." Is not sucli the pride, that we are nurturing ? — the " pride," may we not fear, that "goeth before destruc- tion ? " — the " haughty spirit before a fall ? " Never has there been so self-deceived a nation, as our own. That we are a nation for liberty is among our wildest conceits. We are not a nation for liberty. I refer not, now, to the terrible blot of slavery upon our country. I refer to our pride. No proud man is for liberty. Ko proud nation is for liberty. Liberty — precious boon of Heaven — is meek and reasonable. She admits, that she belongs to all — to the high and the low; the rich and the poor; the black and the white — and, that she belongs to them all equally. The liberty, for which a proud man contends, is a spurious liberty ; and such is the liberty, for which a proud nation contends. It is tyranny; for it invades and strikes down equal rights. But true liberty acknow- ledges and defends the equal rights of all men, and all nations. There is not time for me to expatiate upon the merits of true liberty. They will be known to all; who bow themselves, gratefully and lovingly, to her claims. There is not time for me to prove, that it is her true character, which I have given to true liberty. Suffice it to say, that all will see it to be such, who are so happy, as to escape from the hard dominion of pas- sion and prejudice, to the welcome control of reason and rehgion. If this nation is to prosper, it must be by adhering MEXICAN TREATY AND "MONROE DOCTRINE.'' 297 to the great and precious principles avowed at its birth. One of these principles is, that every people may choose its own form of government, and vary it, as it pleases. We chose ours; and we write "hjrpocrite," with our own finger, upon our own foreheads, if we deny to the Haytiens or Cubans, or any other people, the liberty to choose theirs. K Cuba proposes to remain a part of Spain, or to become a part of France, or England, we cannot condemn the proposition, but at the expense of condemning our own, deliberately adopted and solemnly uttered, principles. It is not for this nation to deny the right of one peo- ple to blend themselves with another people ; nor the right of any people to break up their existing national relations. In other words, it is not for this nation to deny the right either of annexation or secession. I claim the right of the British provinces, north of us, to annex themselves to our nation, if we are wilhng to receive them ; and that, too, whether England does, or does not consent to it. I claim the right of those pro- vinces and New-England to form a nation by them- selves ; and that, too, whether mth or without the approbation of the Enghsh and American Governments. I hold, that the Northern States have the right to go off into a nation by themselves; and the Western States ; and the Southern States. If they will go, let them go ; and we, though loving the Union, and every part of it, and willing to lose no part of it, Avill let them 298 MEXICAN TEEATY AND " MONEOE DOCTRINE." go in peace, and will follow tliem with our blessing, and with our warm prayer, that they may return to us ; and with our firm belief, that they will return to us, after they shall have spent a few miserable years, or perhaps, no more than a few miserable months, in their miser- able experiment of separating themselves from their brethren. Of course, I cannot forget, that many — alas that they are so many! — ^would prefer following the seceders with curses and guns. Oh, how slow are men to emerge from the brutehood, into which their passions and their false education have sunk them ! I say brute- hood; for rage and violence and war belong to it, while love and gentleness and peace are the adornments of i_true manhood. I trust, that I shall not be regarded as holding that a single State in our Union may set up for itself It may not any more than a single county. Such an im- perium in imperio would be too full of inconvenience and objection to entitle itself to the approbation of any reasonable man. My doctrine of annexation and seces- sion is not to be stretched over every folly, that may lay claim to countenance from the doctrine. I spoke of the right of the British Provinces to annex themselves to our nation. I hope, that, in due time, the right will be exercised ; and that England will feel, that she cannot justly resist the exercise of it. But, I hope, for more than such annexation. I hope for the annexation to us of every other part of I^orth- America. MEXICAN TREATY AND "MONROE DOCTRINE." 299 To bring the various peoples of North- America into a nation with ourselves, would be to bring them under a rapid process of enhghtenment, civilization, and homo- geneousness with each other and with us. I trust, tha,t we shall "be a better people, by that day. But bad, as we now are, even in that case, few of our neighbors would become worse, and most of them would become better, by becoming like us. Were all North- America to become one nation, it might not long remain such. But the various nations, into which it would divide, would be more intelligent, useful, and happy, than if they had never constituted one nation. Let Cuba come to us, if she wishes to come. She belongs to us, by force of her geographical position. Let her come, even if she shall not previously abolish her slavery. I am willing to risk the subjection of her slavery to a common fate with our own. Slavery must be a short-lived thing in this land. Under our laws, rightly interpreted, and under the various mighty influences at work for liberty in this land, slavery is to come to a speedy termination. God grant, that it may be a peaceful one ! I would not force Cuba into oiu- nation, nor pay $250,000,000 for her, nor $200,00a,000— no, nor even $100,000,000. But when she wishes to come, I would have her come ; and that I may be more clearly under- stood on this point, I add, that I would not have her wait, always, for the consent of the Spanish Govern- 300 MEXICAN TREATY AND "MONROE DOCTRINE." ment. Now, if tliis is filibusterism^ then all I have to say is " make the most of it ! " [Great laughter.] I do not subscribe to the doctrine, that the people are the slaves and property of their Government. I believe, that Government is for the use of the people, and not the people for the use of Government. Moreover, I do not acknowledge, that any nation, or province, or people, is amenable to any other human Government than that, which they have themselves chosen. But, to return from my filibustering [laughter] to the treaty. The treaty calls on us to vote money to Mexico, in exchange for what we get from her. Is the sum no greater than it should be? Then, I must cheerfully vote it. Kay, it may be even much greater than it should be, and my obligation to vote it remain unbroken. For, I must not, for any shght cause, disobey the law — "the supreme law of the land." But, if I believe the sum to be several times greater than it should be, then it is better, that I disobey than obey the law. I do thus believe ; and, therefore, I elect to disobey the law. I refase to vote the required sum. I am conscious of my resjDonsibilities for the refusal. I confess myself to be a law-breaker ; and I appeal to common sense and the public conscience for my justification. Start not a,t my admission, that I am a law-breaker. Even you, who believe with me, that this treaty is a law, would consent to break it on the same principle, that I do. That is, you would consent to break it, if you thought. MEXICAI^T TREATY AND " MONROE DOCTRINE." 301 as I think, that the sum demanded by the treaty is several tunes as great, as it should be. The truth is, that our statesmen have, under the influence of the vast resources of our nation, and of the overflowing Treasury, which is the consequence of our tariff system, become mad on the subject of figures. With them millions are but httle more than thousands. "Were our Treasury well-nigh empty, as it always should be; Ten millions for what this treaty gives us ! In my esteem, it is not only a very excessive, but an outrage ously excessive, remuneration. I do not say, that I would not vote five millions. Perhaps, I would, but not because I would believe five millions to be no more than a reasonable sum. It would, in my judgment, be much too large a sum. Mr. Washburn, of Mame, (interrupting.) K I understand the gentleman correctly, he said, a short time since, that he considered this House under abso- lute, unquestionable obhgation to vote this money. Or he stated, rather, that the treaty was perfect in its obli- gation, without the action of this House, that it was the law of the land, absolute and complete in its obhgation. But I understand the gentleman to say, now, that he will exercise his discretion, and that he will not vote tlie ten millions. Also, that ho will not c.nll for the 802 MEXICAN TREATY AND "MONROE DOCTRINE." information, because the President is not bound to give any information in relation to tbe treaty. I ask him wbetlier, if lie should call upon the President for the information necessary to enhghten him upon the sub- ject, in this exercise of his discretion, which he now claims the right to use, he might not see therein, rea- sons why he should not vote for the ten millions ? Mr. Smith. I need no such erJightenment. It has been intimated, that corruption attends the treaty. I know not, and, for present purposes, care not, whether this is so. The question of corruption is not before us, and for what else could I wish to see "the papers? " The actual provisions of the treaty constitute all, tha,t is legitimately before us ; and the only question for us to decide, in governing our votes on this occasion, is whether $10,000,000 is not so excessively large a sum, that we had better disobey the treat}^, and break a " supreme law of the land," than vote it. As I have already said, I think it our duty to break the law ; or, to use the less startling phrase of the day, to render the law, at this ten million point, "inoperative and void." [Laughter.] Happily, I shall not need to regard as criminals, those, whose votes, on this occasion, shall differ from my own. The difference between us may be but an honest difference of judgment. Happily, too, it is only money, that we lose by voting too large a sum to Mexico. Whereas, should there be war between u,s and her, in consequence of leaving unsettled what tliis MEXICAN TREATY AND "MONROE DOCTRINE." 303 treaty settles, tlie loss to both nations would be infi- nitely greater tbaji a loss of money. I liad ra,tlier we should make an absolute gift of ten millions to Mexico than that we should fire one gun at her — and even, too, if that one gun shoiild hit nobody. LETTER ANNOUNCING HIS PURPOSE TO RESIGN HIS SEAT IN CONGRESS. "Washington, June 21, 1854. To My Constituents : Mj nomination to Congress alarmed me greatly, be- cause I believed, that it would result in my election. To separate myself from my large private business, for so long a time ; and to war for so long a time, against the strong liabits formed in my deeply secluded life, seemed to be well-nigb impossible. My election liaving taken place, I concluded, that I must serve you, during the first session of my term. Not to speak of other reasons for such service, there was, at least, so much due to you, in requital for your generous forgetfulness of party obligations, in electing me. I could not do less, and, yet, make a decent retui-n for the respect and partiality you had shown me. I did not, until within a few weeks, fully decide not to return to Congress, at the next session. I could not S06 PURPOSE TO RESIGN HIS SEAT IN CONGRESS. know, but tliat sometliing imforeseen miglit demand such return. I, now, feel at liberty to announce my purpose to resign my seat in Congress, at tbe close of the present session. Why I make the annunciation so early is, that you may have ample time to look around you for my successor. I resign my seat the more freely, because I do not thereby impose any tax upon your time. You will fill the vacancy, at the General Election. Indeed, I should have been entirely unwilhng to put you to the pains of holding a special election. GrERRiT Smith. SECOND SPEECH ON THE RICHARD W. MEADE BILL. JULY 1, 1854. Mk. Jones, of Tennessee. I will witlidraw the mo- tion to strike out tlie enacting clause of the bill. Mr. Smith, having moved to strike out all after the enacting clause, and supply its place with the provision to pay $250,000 in full satisfaction of the claim, said, that the speech of the honorable gentleman from Ten- nessee, [Mr. Jones,] brought to his mind a passage of the Bible : "He that is first in his own cause, seemeth just, but his neighbor cometh and searcheth him." Kow, I am the neighbor of this gentleman, (Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith sit near each other,) and I have come to search him. (Laughter.) The gentleman from Tennessee finds fault with my speech on this subject a couple of months ago. I con- fess, that I did say he had read from one paper, when 808 SPEECH ON THE RICHAKD W. MEADE BILL. it turned out, that lie had read from another. But my mistake was of no consequence to the argument Another of my faults was, that I did not read to the end of the paragraph, of which I read a part. The closing lines of the paragraph upset, as he holds, the interpretation which I put upon the lines preceding them. Let us look into this. In those preceding lines Mr. Adams scouts the idea, that the Meade debt is not among the claims which our Government had assumed and "agreed to compound:" and in these immediately following and closing lines, he scouts the idea, that a certain "order" is a claim on our Government. And yet the gentleman from Tennessee regards the debt and the order as identical, the one with the other! and concludes, that, although Mr. Adams said, in one breath, that the debt is among the claims against Gov- ernment, he said in the next, that it is not ! I offer a simple explanation to the gentleman's mind. It is the same that I offered before. There was an unliquidated claim of Meade, and also a liquidated one. The former, I held, was binding upon our Government. The latter, I admitted, was not. This is the distinction insisted on by Mr. Adams. We did not agree, certainly not in the treaty of 1819, to pay whatever sum Spain might admit she owed Meade, but the sum (or a pro rata allowance thereon) which she actually owed Meade. The gentleman from Oliio [Mr. Giddings] who re- plied to my former speech on this subject, said, that SPEECH ON THE RICHARD W. MEADE BILL. 309 our Government was under no obligation to tielp Meade get from tlie Spanish Government tlie proofs of his claim. But what right had that gentleman to say so, in the face of the treaty obhgation of Spain to fur- nish the proofs ? That obligation was as sacred as any other in the treaty ; and our Government was as much bound to enforce it, as to enforce any other. What, if, in the case -of half of the claims, the vouchers and documents had been in the possession of the Spanish Government, and their production had been refused? Our Govern- ment would, surely, have enforced the provision in ques- tion, and would have done so, before paying any of the clauns. The true state of the case is this : Our Government absolutely released the Spanish Government from the Meade claim. It, simultaneously, bound the Spanish Government to give up the proofs of that claim. When called on to do so, it refused. And, now, our Government sits still, and says, that Meade has lost his claim! Monstrous injustice! And a deep shame to our country is such injustice ! Mr. Forsyth has been referred to. He, like Mr. Adams, believed with Judge White, of the Commission^ that Meade had " a well-founded claim." Not only was Meade entitled to a pro rata allowance from the five millions, on his claim, provided he had been able to establish it, by means of the bounden help 810 SPEECH ON THE EICHARD W. MEADE BILL. of our Grovernment ; but a strong argument can be made to sliow, that our Government was bound to pay Meade the wliole sum, wliicli the Spanish Government acknowledged to be due hun. There is not the least reason to believe, that the Cortes would have agreed to the second treaty, which, in addition to what the first treaty gave us, annulled three Spanish grants of land, had not that body supposed, that our Govermnent would pay the Meade debt, as it had been liquidated. The history of the transactions makes this well-nigh certain. But, if there are any technicahties, by which we may escape the payment of this claim, I pray that we may not avail ourselves of them. We all admit, that Spain owed a debt to Meade. I say not how much. We all admit, that Spain believed, that in the bargain she made with us, we assumed to pay or compound this claim. We all know, that we made a good bargain out of Spain, in getting Florida for five millions of dol- lars. Can we, in such circumstances, consent to turn over the Meade claim to Spain for payment ? Can we, in such circumstances, refuse to pay it ourselves ? SPEECH FOR THE HARBOR OF OSWEGO. JULY 12, 185 4. The Eiver and Harbor bill being under considera- tion, Mr. Smith, having moved to amend it by adding fifty thousand dollars to tbe appropriation for the har- bor of Oswego, said : Oswego does a niucb larger custom-house business than any other town in the nation, where the Govern- ment has not authorized the building of a custom-house. And, yet, the harbor, ia which all this business is done, is a miserably contracted and half-finished one. The people of Oswego have been compelled to tax them- selves, for many years, very heavily, in order to pre- serve their harbor, and to maintain, against the ele- ments, the cheap and frail piers built by Government. And were they, now, to call on Government for re-pay- 312 SPEECH FOR THE HARBOR OF OSWEGO. ment, tliej would be as unjustly dealt witli as was Wilmington day before yesterday, Avhen the section, making like re-payment, was struck out of tlie Cape Fear Eiver bill. For Grovernment to draw revenue from our harbors, and, yet, to refuse to keep tliem in repair, and to compel the people, who live where the harbors are, to keep them in repair, is what I cannot see to be honest. Thus to benefit the Treasury, or, in other words, the whole nation, at the expense of particular localities and small communities, is, in my eye, nothing short of downright fraud. But I have been asked, during the discussion of this bill, with what consistency I can advocate the improve- ment of rivers and harbors, at the hands of the Federal Government, seeing that I have for years advocated, both with my lips and pen, that they be improved by States and smaller communities, and not by the Federal Government ? It is true that I would have such work done by other and more suitable agents than the Fede- ral Government. It has never been economically and well done by that Government : and it never will be economically and well done by that Government. It is a work that cannot be properly performed at arms- length. It LS a work that can be properly performed by those only, who, to use another famihar phrase, are on the spot. The Federal Government, because so great, is too unwieldy for such a work : and, because it is so remote from the work, an adequate sense of responsi- SPEECH FOK THE HAKBOR OF OSWEGO. 813 bilitj cannot be brouglit home to it. I object to such work in the hands of the Grovernment, if only because such work tends to centrahzation, and to undue Federal power. I object to it, if only because it affords im- mense room for corrupting both Government and people. Gladly would I vote, this day, to have the Federal Government, provided it would surrender all claims to revenue from our harbors, stand entirely aside fi'om the whole work of improving them. But, just so long, as that Government will tax us for using our own har- bors, just so long, I can do no less than insist, that Government shall put, and keep, them in proper con- dition. I am no more inconsistent here than I am in the case of custom-houses. So long as Government shall adhere to the injustice of supporting itself by cus- toms ; and so long as the people shall be foohsh enough to let Government do so, so long I shall be in favor of having Government erect safe and suitable buildings for custom-houses, instead of having it lease such as are unsafe and unsuitable. Hence, although if I could have my will, and if my theories of Government could prevail, there would not be a custom-house on the earth ; I, nevertheless, feel myself to be guilty of no inconsistency in calling upon Government to erect cus- tom-houses. So, too, in the case of rivers and harbors, whilst Government claims, and with the acquiescence of the people, the exclusive control, and the exclusive U 814 SPEECH FOE THE HARBOR OF OSWEGO. revenues, of them ; I feel, that Government is, not only to be permitted, bnt to be required to improve them. I moved an increase of $50,000. That smn, together with the $21,000, which the bill provides for, would be none too much to put the harbor of Oswego in such a state, as its very great and very rapidly growing busi- ness demands. I desire the success of this bill. The security of life and property requires it. Instead of the total sum appropriated- by this bill being too large, I would have Government, another year, expend a much larger sum on these and similar objects, providing it shall not do the far juster and better thing of surrendering the work into the hands of the proper agents — ^the States and smaller communities. I did not offer my amendment, with the view of its adoption. Indeed, I am persuaded that the success of the bill would be greatly endangered by amending it. It is safer and wiser to follow the estimates, and to walk in the track of the Department. I withdraw my amendment. L E T T E E TO SENATOR HAMLIN, ON THE RECIPROCITY TREATY. [The Session, that Mr. Smith was in Congress, the Reciprocity Treaty- was confirmed by the Senate, and tlae Bill for giving eSect to it became a law. His deep desire for the success of this great measure led him to write the following Letter, and to have a copy of it laid on the desk of every Member of Congress,] Hon. H. Hamlin, U. S. Senate : Dear Sir: I learn, with surprise and regret, that yon are not decidedly in favor of the " Keciprocity Treaty ;" and that, possibly, yon may oppose its adop- tion. Believing, as I do, that the people of Maine are to benefit more by the treaty than an equal number of people in any other of the States, I had supposed, that the Senators of Maine would be especially favorable to it. But I am informed, that it is, as an inhabitant of Maine, that you hesitate to support it. Perhaps, as I have never seen the treaty, and have no precise knowledge of its character, and am too much occupied with various urgent matters to learn more of it now, I ought not to make this communication. 316 LETTER TO SENATOR HAMLIN. Nevertheless, my interest in the treaty is so deep, that I jQiist express it, although at the risk of betraying great ignorance of its provisions. I am in favor of free trade between onr country and the British North- American Provinces. I am in favor of it for the general reason, that all parts of the world should obey the laws of nature, and enjoy free trade with each other. I am in favor of it for the particular reason, also, that, these Provinces, being our neighbors, restrictions on their trade with us, are especially incon- venient and injurious. If we must be strangers to any portion of our fellow-men, let it not be to our neigh- bors. To multi|)ly ties, and extend intercourse, and grow into homogeneousness, with our neighbors, is especially important. And all this we shall not fail to do, if we have free trade with them. We may never be one in name with our British neighbors. But free trade with them and its resulting social connections, and ever-growing assimilations, would make us one with them in reality. And if we are one with them in reality^ it is comparatively unimportant, whether we shall ever become one with them in name. The free trade of Canada with the United States, will be the virtual annexation of Canada to the United States. Many suppose, that it will lead to its literal annexation. I am more inclined to believe, that commercial annex- ation will, at least for the present age, supersede the desire for political annexation. And if, in the end, ^•^^"•ada shall become a part of this nation, the greater o:n the eecipeocity treaty. 317 tlie likeness between lier people and ours, tlie greater tlie prospect of harmony and prosperity, in sucli union. In this respect, therefore, as well as in others, the assimilating influences of free trade constitute an argu- ment in favor of our establishing free trade with Canada. It" is on these, its assimilating influences, that I base my opinion, that free trade will supersede the present desire for annexation. When free trade, combined with other causes, shall have reached the effect, the world over, of making the man of one nation like the man of another, the tendencj^, in my judg-ment, will be not so much to the uniting as to the su.bdividing of nations. National pride and jealousy will then have abated ; and then men will peacefully apportion them- selves into smaller nations, for the sake of greater con- venience. But it is said, that the treaty under consideration does not provide for free trade in all property. I am aware, that it does not, and I add, that I am sorry it does not. The argument for free trade in all property I regard as imanswerable. Nevertheless, I do not claim, that the argmnent for free trade in manufactures is as strong as the argument for free trade in natural productions. Witli some plausibility may Government say, that it must protect the labor of its subjects against the over- whelming competition of foreign labor ; and with more plausibility it may say, that there are many foreign 318 LETTER TO SENATOR HAMLIN, fabrics, wMcL. minister to luxury, and immoralitj, and ruin ; and tlie importation of wMcli sliould, tlierefore, be discouraged, if not, indeed, forbidden. But wliat- ever may be said, in regard to tbe " many inventions, wMcb man hath, sought out," nevertlieless to the free exchange, among all nations, of what God bath, made, no objections can be raised but what are palpably at war with divine ordinations — ^but what, in a word, are palpably atheistic. The first and highest duty, then, of a nation, in respect to the freedom of trade, is to admit into the list of free articles all natural productions. To perform this duty is to acknowledge and honor the Deity. To refuse to perform it, is glaringly to deny and dishonor Him. Moreover, to perform this duty, and to allow the free exchange of the products of God's hands is to open the way for performing the other duty of allow- ing the free exchange of the products of man's hands. Now, the plainest and most sacred of these two duties our Provincial neighbors stand ready to perform. They propose a free exchange with us of natural pro- ductions. We cannot refuse their proposition and be innocent. To say, that we will not consent to an exchange of natural productions, unless it be accom- panied by an exchange of manufactures, is to prove ourselves to be most unreasonable ; as unreasonable as the man who should refuse to deal with his neighbor in wood and water, unless he is, also, permitted to deal OK THE EECIPROCITY TREATY. 319 ■witb. him in pins and penknives. It is, also, to prove ourselves to be most lijrpocritical ; for, in claiming, that these provinces shonld allow free trade with ns in man- ufactures, we must, if honest, claim, that thej should allow it with Great Britain also. But are we ourselves willing to have free trade with Great Britain? We are not. / am ; but we are not. Are we ourselves willing to defray the cost of Government by direct taxes ? We are not. / am ; but we are not. We are hypocrites then — ^palpable hypocrites — ^if we would lay upon these provinces the necessity of supporting their Governments by direct taxation, and yet shrink from supporting our own in the same way. Our complaints of the illiberality of these Provinces are very blameworthy, not only in the light of what I have already said, but also in the light of the fact, that, more than seven years ago, they abolished aU differential duties between their mother country and ourselves ; and placed themselves in the same commer- cial relations toward us both. By reason of this gen- erous treatment of us, and of our contiguity to them, we enjoy the monopoly of supplying them with iron castings, agricultural implements, and, in short, with nearly all coarse manufactures. How valuable to us is this abolition of differential duties, is manifest from the fact, that our trade with those Provinces has doubled since 1846, the year of the abolition ; and that the exports are double the imports. The effect of this 520 LETTER TO SENATOE HAMLIN". abolition on the trade of the Provinces with Greai; Britain, though not correspondently great, is still very great. This trade has fallen off from one fourth to one half. I referred to our inconsistency in urging the Pro- vinces to adopt universal free trade with us, and there- by virtually urging them to adopt universal free trade with Great Britain, also. I proceed to inquire — what would be the effect upon ourselves of the success of this inconsistency ? In other words — what would be the effect upon ourselves of free trade between these Pro- vinces and Great Britain, whilst the present restrictions upon the trade between ourselves and Great Britain are continued ? The effect would be a serious diminu- tion of our revenue, and a serious damage to our man- ufactures, and a serious damage to our morals, also : — as in that case, goods to an immense amount would be brought from Great Britain into these Provinces for the purpose of being smuggled into the United States. On the one hand, it is objected to the treaty, that its Hst of productions is not full enough ; and, on the other, that it is too full. I admit, that it is not fall enough. Consistency demands, that it should include all natural productions. And when I speak here of natural productions, I mean them, not only as they come from the earth, but, also, in that next stage of forms, which human labor gives to them, for the pur- pose of making them more portable — such as wood in ON THE EECIPEOCITY TEE AT Y. 821 the board, as well as in tlie log, and wlieat ground, as well as unground. Iron in tlie pig, as well as in tlie ore, should be included in tlie treaty ; and if it is not, it is, probably, because of tlie fear on the part of the Provinces of thereby letting in Scotch and other pigs, duty free. So, too, unrefined sugar, if not included in the treaty, should have been. But, I trust, that they, whose natural productions are not included in it, will, nevertheless, not condemn the treaty. I trust, that they will, magnanimously, allow its justice in the main to outweigh its particular injustice ; its justice to others to outweigh its injustice to themselves. At the same time, however, that they cannot but feel themselves to be wronged by the treaty in this respect ; they Yvdll be consoled by the reflection, that the adoption of it will be the adoption of the principle of the free exchange of natural productions ; and, therefore, that the productions, in which they are especially interested, cannot remain, for a long time, excepted from the scope of this principle. It is held, in some quarters, that wheat and flour should not be in the list of free articles. But why should they not be? Because our flour and wheat will, as is alleged, sink in price under the free compe- tition of Canada wheat and flour. But, were this apprehended depreciation really to take place, never- theless, free trade in the productions of ISTature is an brdinatim-! of Nature, which cannot bo innopontlv w)- 822 LETTER TO SENATOR HAMLIK, lated. But -woiild tliere be sucli depreciation ? I see not, tliat tlie treaty is to be credited with sucli a bene- ficent operation. Our country and Canada do eacb. grow a surplus of wbeat; and, hence, in the case of each, the foreign market regulates the price. The surplus of each country goes to foreign markets ; and whether the Canada surplus goes upon the St. Law- rence, or across our country, cannot affect the price of OUT wheat. The competition for that surplus and ours being in foreign markets exclusively, must be the same, whatever the route to them. I say, that the competition is there only. This is virtually, if not literally, true. For what if a little of the Canada sur- plus should come into our country for consumption, it could only have the effect to displace the like quan- tity of our surplus, and to liberate it for foreign mar- kets. Were any proof needed, beyond what is afforded by the reason of the case, that foreign markets rule the price of the surplus production, we might instance the fact, that, for eleven twelfths of the year, v/heat in bond in the city of New- York bears as high a price, as wheat, that is not in bond. Indeed, it is sometimes higher, since the repeal of duties between the British North- American Provinces, for now it can go duty free from our ports to the lower of those Provinces. I said, that, whether the Canada surj)lus wheat shall find its way to foreign markets upon the St. Lawrence, or across our country, cannot affect the price of our ON THE RECIPROCITY TREATY. 323 wlieat. Nevertheless, we are deeply interested to have it take the latter route, and so add immensely to the business of our canals, and railroads, and storehouses, and shipping, both on our lakes and on the ocean. It may not add immensely to it, just now. But it will soon. There is no assignable limit to the production of wheat in that best of all wheat countries, Canada West. It is true, that, if, in a year of famine in our land, there should be a free admission of Canada food into it, such free admission would reduce the price of Ame- rican food. But what right-minded man would not have the price of it reduced, in such cu'cumstances ? With what right-minded man would not this contin- gent benefit of the treaty be an argument for the treaty ? It is said, though I do not believe truly, that Penn- sylvania would not have coal come into the list of free articles. But, why should it not ? Who believes, that the Maker of the coal did not make it free for every part of the world, that wants it? Who, then, can set up an honest argmnent against its free transmission ? Moreover, free trade in coal between us and the British Provinces is obviously of great importance, not to those Provinces only, but to our nation also : and much, therefore, as Pennsylvania may be disposed to go for herself, she should be still more disposed to go for the nation. She should be more patriotic and benevolent 824 LETTER TO SENATOR HAMLIN, than sectional and selfisli ; and, I trust, tliat what she shonld be, she will be. But, is Pennsylvania to be harmed by free trade in coal ? She is not. All the British Provinces need her anthracite; and Canada West would take from Erie immense quantities of her bituminous coal. She, already, takes much, notwith- standing the duty. But, I prefer to take a wider view, and to look at the effect of this free trade in coal upon larger portions of our country than a single State. The consumption, in that part of our country east of the Alleghany ridge, of the bituminous coal of the British Provinces, would, were it free of duty, be very large. I would here remark, that this coal cannot properly be regarded as coming into competition with anthracite. It is highly bituminous. I have heard, perhaps not correctly, that the volatile parts in some of it are sixty per cent. To illustrate the dissimilarity between this and anthracite — ^whilst the one is wholly worthless for making gas, the other is so inferior to it for steamships, that the Cunard line, notwithstanding it touches at Halifax, supphes itself with anthracite. We desire to supply the lower British Pro^dnces with wheat, flour, corn, rice, pork, and many kinds of merchandise. But, in order to do so, the charges of transportation must be very small. How can they bo made so ? I answer, by our consenting to receive from those Provinces that great amount of tonnage, which ON THE RECIPEOCITY TEEATY. 825 thej will be able to f ornisli ns, providing we allow them to send ns coal, as well as such, other coarse com- modities, as fish, plaster, and grindstones. Their cargo to ns will, in that case, pay, or nearly pay, fi^eight, both ways, inasmuch as their cargo to ns will be fall, and our return cargo to them light, and inasmuch as one of the laws, which govern the carrying of property, is that it is carried cheapest in that direction, in which there is the least to carry. Indeed, in this case, the return cargo would be so light, as, probably, to be no more than would be needed for ballast. I close under this head with the remark, that if the treaty should have the effect to cheapen wheat and coal, such effect would be no argument against it. As we care more for the whole human brotherhood than for a part of it ; and as we are more concerned to have fuel and food accessible to the poor than to have them bring great prices to their owners, so the lower the prices of coal and wheat, the more we are to rejoice. I said, under the head before this, that the law of free trade in natural productions, cannot be innocently violated. I add, that it cannot in any wide and just view of the case, be profitably violated. For every such view must include not the wheat-growers and the coal owners only, but all other classes also ; and who is there, that, in the light of the wants and interests of the great whole, does not see cheap bread and cheap coal to be among the greatest of human blessings ? S26 LETTER TO SZXaTOR HaMT.LS'. There are complaints from tout State, tliat tbe treaty includes lumber in the list of free articles. But, snrelT, this should not be complained of Even if it is so. that the firee competition of ProTincial lumber ^c'lld create Ic^s anywhere, such loss would fall rather on the comparative handftil of persons, who own the lumber lands of Maine, than on the mass of her people. The trees of these owners might not advance as fast in piic-e, as they had done. But the working of them into lumber would, probably, be as amply remunerated as ever. But, a^ain. when a srreat beneficent national measure is proposed. Maine should not, and Maine will not, shrivel herself up into a merely selfish view cf that measure. Even if the treaty were so hberal and so just, as to provide, that ships, built in the Provinces, may receive our registers, and have every right of ships built in OUT own country, Maine, although our great ship-builder, and having, in such case, a new and powerfol competitor, should, nevertheless, not object to the treatv. Even if she mav possiblv lose somewhat by the provisions of the treaty, iu regard to lumber ; and even if the treaty had gone so &r, as to bring her a new competitor in ship-building, Maine nevertheless should rememb-er that, on ac not expect to 372 CUSTOM-HOUSES AT BUFJ?ALO AND OSWEGO. see Government riglit until it is so supported. But it is not on tliat ground tliat tlie building of tliese custom- houses is objected to. ISTone of the objectors propose free trade. All are in favor of continuing to defray the expenses of Government by duties. Hence all of them are to be regarded as in favor of safe and suit- able buildings for custom-house business, wherever there is enough of such business to make such build- ings necessary* I take it for granted that the only question in the case, which these objectors allow to be pertinent and influential with them, is, whether there is business to warrant the erection of the proposed custom-houses. Others must speak for the custom- houses recommended in other States. I will confine myself to the advocacy of the two recommended to be built in my own. Both are needed, by the fact that, in each of the towns, (Buffalo and Oswego,) there is a vast amount of custom-house business. That of Oswe- go, I feel safe in saying, exceeds that of any other town in the nation above tide- water. Indeed, there are scarcely more than half a dozen towns in the whole nation that exceed Oswego in custom-house business. The duties payable on bonded and unbonded property passing through Oswego in the year 1853, exceeded $696,000. This year they will probably exceed $1,000,000. I learn from the collector of that port that they amounted, up to the 30th June, to $518,276. To enforce my claim for a. cnstom-house in Oswego, CUSTOM-HOUSES AT BUFFALO AND OSWEGO. 373 I will read to the committee an extract from a letter wliicli I received a fortniglit since from tlie collector : " You will see that our business is constantly and largely increas- ing. The bonded property received here from Canada this year to the end of June, is nearly equal to the total of last year ; and the last year showed a very large increase on any former year." Speaking of tlie contracted and unfit building wHch Government leases, the collector says : " The custom-house building here is eighteen feet by fifty feet, and contains no vault or place of deposit for the public moneys collected here except a common iron safe. My clerks and assistants when fully employed, as is the case the greater part of the business season, are about as closely stowed as children at the desks of a well-filled country school-house." I would add that the collector has also informed me, as a further illustration of the large amount of business in his office, that the number of persons employed in it is thirty-five. I have, now, ended my plea for a custom-house in Oswego. Confident I am that the facts in this plea cannot be resisted. But if, by possibility, they shall be resisted, and Government shall refuse to build a custom-house in Oswego, what shall I say to reconcile my constituents to such refusal? What pacifying explanations will you enable me to make to them? What shall I be able to say to them in vindication of the justice, impartiality, consistency of Government ? [Here tl-e hammer foll.1 FINAL LETTER TO ins CONSTITUENTS. Washington, xIugust 7, 1854. To My CGnstituents : To tlie end, that you miglit have ample time to look around you for my successor, I apprised you, some ■weeks ago, of my intention to resign my seat in Con- gress, at the close of the present session. I now in- form you, that I have fulfilled this intention. The session ended, to-day ; and, to-day, I have sent to the Secretary of State, at Albany, the necessary evidence of my actual resignation. I take this occasion for sajmig, that I am happy to learn of your favorable regard for my general course in Congress ; and that I am sorry, though not surpris- ed, to learn, that there are some things in it, with which a few — perhaps, more than a few — of you are dissatisfied. And, now, since I have adverted to this dissatisfac- 376 FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTIT TENTS. tion, it seems proper to saj more. How much more ? Sliall I but add the simple declaration, that, concern- ing the things with which you are dissatisfied, I did what I thought to be right ? To stop there would not be sufficiently respectful to you. You are entitled to my reasons — to, at least, the principal of them — for this part of my official conduct : and, I add, that I am not to be impatient with you, if they shall fail to satisfy you. Kay, I am not to be so vain, as to suppose, that it is possible to render sound and satisfying reasons for all the numerous things, which I have said and done, in Congress. That a life, alvv^ays so full of errors, before my coming to Congress, -was to be entirely empty of them, whilst in Congress, was not to be expected, either by my constituents, or by myself. I have, always, suffered, very greatly and very un- justly, in the world's esteem, because the world has, always, persisted in judging me, by the light of its own, instead of my own, creeds and practices. To try a man's consistency, he must be tried by himself: and to try his integrity even, he must, to no small extent, be tried by himself— by his own behefs and deeds — by his own life, both speculative and practical. I noticed strictures upon almost the very first sen- tence of my very first speech in Congress, which taught me, that my official, no more than my private, life, was to be exempt from the injustice to which I have, here, alluded. It so happened, that I began that speech FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. 377 with, expressions of civility toward tliose around me, and with kind and charitable interpretations of the differences between them and myself. No sooner was the speech in print than many abolitionists complained of my courtesy to slaveholders ; and insisted, that I had been guilty of making light of the radical differ- ences between slavery and abolition — ^between slave- holders and abolitionists. Assuming, as they did, that I was but " a one-idea abolitionist," they farther, and very naturally, assumed, that I stood up to make that speech, with nothing, but slavery and slaveholders, in my eye. Two things, which they should have remem- bered, they seemed entirely to have forgotten. One of these is, that I entered Congress with such peculiar tbeories of Civil Government — matured and cherished, however visionary and false — as, I foresaw, must be, continually, bringing out differences between my asso- ciates and myself, not on the question of slavery only, but on innumerable other questions also. The other is, that among these theories, is the duty, resting im- peratively on the inmates of a legislative hall, to know nothing, whilst in such hall, of each other's private character and private relations ; and to recognize, and treat, each, other as gentlemen. This much, at least then, can be said in vindication of the opening of the speech, in question— that, however little it correspond- ed with the views of others, it faithfully reflected my own : and that, so far as it is the duty of every man 378 FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. to be, in all circumstances himself, and tlie duty of all others to judge him hj himself, I was not obnoxious to criticism. The first complaint of my conduct in Congress, save that, which. I have, just now, incidentally referred to, was, that I voted against the " Homestead Bill" — and, that, too, after having made a speech in its favor. This apparent inconsistency is disposed of by the single remark, that it was not, until after the speech, that the bill was so amended, as to confine its benefits to white persons. But to relieve myself of this apparent inconsistency falls very far short of settiag me wholly right, in the eyes of my critics. None the less will they continue to say, that, notwithstanding the amendment debarred me from doing justice to tbe blacks, I should still have been ready to do justice to the whites, and, therefore, to vote for the biQ. But what if they should come to believe, as, I hold, all persons should believe, that it is not the Grovernment, but the people — and the people equally — that own the land? — ^then, they would promptly acquit me of all blame in the case. If, for the sake of illustration, the light-eyed man and the dark-eyed man do each, really own eighty acres of the public land ; then, beyond all doubt, it is not justice, which is done to the light-eyed man, in voting him one hundred and sixty acres, and in leaving none for the dark-eyed man. That can not be justice, which is made up, so essentially, of injust- FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. 379 ice. That can not be justice, wliicli robs one man to add tlie spoils of robbery to the already full share of another. It is true, that this is only a supposed case, which I have, here, presented. But, manifestly, the principle, in the actual case before us, is the same as in this supposed case. Manifestly, the argument could, in no wise, be affected by substituting a light-skinned man for the light-eyed one, and a darked-skinned man for the dark-eyed one. Manifestly, the rights of men can no more turn on the color of the skin than on the color of the eye. I trust, that nothing I have here said will be con- strued into an impeachment of the integrity of those, who voted for the " Homestead Bill." Among them are some, whom I know to be good, as well as wise, men. They surveyed the subject in the hght of their own philosophy, and not in the light of mine: and, hence, they saw not, that their vote went to involve both themselves and the recipients of the land in the guilt of robbery. The next complaint, which came to my ears, was, that I refused to become a party to the plan for pre- venting the taking of the vote on the Nebraska bill. This refusal was a great giief to the abolitionists in both Houses of Congress : and I scarcely need say, that I love them too well not to grieve in their grief :N"ev- ertheless, I had to persist in the refusal, and in stand- ino- alone. The wisest of men and the best of men, 880 FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. .entreated me, oyer and over again, by my regard for my reputation, and by all, tliat is precious in the cause of freedom, not to persevere in this singularity. Nev- ertheless — and, that, too, notwithstanding obstinacy had never been imputed to me — I was immovable. How could I be moved, when it was my convictions, that fastened me to my position ? Years before, in the calm studies of my secluded home, I had adopted the democratic theory — not nominally and coldly and par- tially — ^but really and earnestly and fully: and the conclusions, which I had arrived at, in circumstances so favorable for arriving at just conclusions, I was entirely unwilling to repeal, in a season of excitement and temptation. I spoke of the democratic theory. But the soul of that theory is the majority principle. Hence, to violate this principle is to abandon that theory. I was, frequently, told, that those rules of the House, in the expert use of which the taking of the vote on the Nebraska bill could be staved off indefi- nitely, were made for the very purpose of enabhng the minority to hold the majority at bay, whenever it might please to do so. But this did not influence me. For, in the first place, I could not believe, that they were made for so wrongful — ^for so anti-democratic — a purpose: and, in the second place, even had I thus believed, I, nevertheless, could not have consented to use them for that purpose. There is no rule — nay, there is no enactment, however solemn or commanding, FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. 381 that I can consent to wield against the all-vital and sacred majoritj principle ; or, in other words, against democracy itself. When I complained, that the plan in question was revolution, I was charged with inconsistency; — incon- sistency with my well-known readiness to rescue a fugi- tive slave. It is true, that I would rescue a fugitive slave. Nevertheless, I felt not the pertinence of the charge of inconsistency.. In rescuing him, I take my stand outside of the Government, and am a confessed revolutionist. Let it be remembered, that it is only, whilst and where, I am inside of the Grovernment, that I acknowledge myself bound to bow to the will of the majority. I bow to it in th^ legislative hall and in the court-room; and everywhere and always do I bow to it; until the purposed execution of the decree, that is intolerable. Then I rebel. They are guilty of antici- pating the only proper time for rebellion, who resort to it, during the process of legislation. I sit in the House of Eepresentatives, and hear my fellow members dis- cuss, and see them vote upon, a bill, which wrongs me greatly. Argument and persuasion and my vote are all, that I can, legitimately, oppose to its passage. K it pass, and its enforcement be contemplated, it will be. then, for me to decide whether to rebel against the Government, and to resist the enforcement. I need say no more, in explanation, or defence, of my gTOunds for refusing to go into the scheme to pre- 382 FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. vent the majority from bringing tlie House to a vote on the Nebraska bill. I will, however, before leaving this subject, advert to the fact, that for refusing to go into this scheme — ^into this physical struggle, which continued through thirty-five successive hours — into this strife to see which party could go the longer, with- out sleeping, and eating, and, I would that I could add, without drinking also — ^my reputation for fidelity to the anti-slavery cause has suffered not a little, in some quarters. Moreover, it is not only in this wise, that I suffered loss by refusing to foUoYf the multitude on that occasion. My reputation for a sound understand- ing, poor as it was before — and poor as that of every radical and earnest abolitionist must continue to be, until abolition shall be in the ascendant — is far poorer now. It is, I suppose, for my singularity on that memorable occasion, that a very distinguished and much-esteemed editor tells the world, that I am "defi- cient in common sense." I am happy to believe, how- ever, that this editor will readily admit, that it is far better to be "deficient in common sense" than in com- mon honesty: and that, when he shall have read this letter, he will clearly see, that, with my views of the comprehensive and sacred claims of the majority prin- ciple, I could not have gone into the combination in question, and yet have retained common honesty. I was a fool in this editor's esteem not to go into it. But he will now perceive, that I would have been a rogue, FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. 388 bad I gone into it. He will, now, be glad, that I did not go into it. For mncli as he values knowledge, he values integrity more. And were he, now, to meet me, he would press mj hand, and thank me, that I played the fool in preference to playing the rogue. By the way, will not this editor allow me to remind hun, that when, a little more than three short years ago, I went into different parts of our State to speak agamst certain Senators for their daring to prevent the necessary majority of the Senate from passing the Canal bill, he had no censures, but rather praises, to bestow on me ? It is true, that he and I both desired the suc- cess of the Canal bill; and that we both desired the defeat of the Nebraska bill. And it is true, therefore, that, whilst my principles worked for his and my inter- ests and wishes, in the former case, they worked, (at least, as some thought,) against them, in the latter. Was this, however, a good reason why I should not allow them to work in the latter, as well as in the former, case? I ask this editor — I ask the world — how it was possible for me to fall in with this policy of preventing the vote on the Nebraska bill, unless I was, also, prepared to revoke my condemnation of the like policy on the part of the Senators, to whom I have referred. Let it not be thought, that I call in question either the wisdom or integrity of the members of Congress, who went into this combination. Wiser and better men 384 FINAL LETTEK TO HI6 CONSTITUENTS. than myself went into it. ISTevertlieless, they could not have gone into it, had they entertained my views, be those views sonnd or false, of the rights of the majority. Ere lea™g the Nebraska bill, I will briefly refer to the censures, which have been cast on one of my private letters. The whole, or none, of that letter should have been printed. I was sorry to see disjointed parts of it in print. The letter is not before me. But, I remem- ber, that I spoke in it against night-sessions of Congress, and declared, that, had the hour of three in the morn- ing been appointed for taking the vote on the Nebraska bill, I should not have been present. This declaration has been seized on, to show my low estimate of the value of the anti-slavery cause. Now, I have not one word to offer in proof, that I do, really and greatly, love this cause. If proof to this end is still lacking, even aft^er more than a quarter of a century's profession of such love, then, most certainly, no proof can be found, that can supply the lack. It is contended, that I would have been as much bound, in the supposed case, to have been present, at the taking of the vote, as the editor of a daily newspa- per is to be often at his desk, until a late hour of the night; and (it might have been added, with as much propriety) as the physician is, to pass the whole night often, at the bedside of his patient. Now, not to say, tha,t this night-labor, on the part of the editor and phy- FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. 385 sician, is a foreseen and voluntarily incurred one, and is, therefore, in this respect, most widely distinguisb.- able from the three o'clock appointment ; it is enough to say, that this night-labor is a necessity, and that this three o'clock appointment is not ; and that, hence, it is absurd to refer to the labor to justify the appointment. Had I taken the ground not to obey any summons to appear in Congress, at three o'clock in the morning — not even that, which was prompted by the sudden landing of a mighty enemy, or by any other necessity — then, I confess, it would have been proper to rebuke me for resisting a necessity; and proper to put me to shame by pointing me to the faithful editor and physician, who yield a prompt obedience to the neces- sities, which come upon them. I denied, that the three o'clock appointment would have been a necessity. This denial is abundantly just- ified by the fact, that there is nothing in the ISTebraska bill to make the taking of the vote on it necessary, at any time ; and by the further fact, that if there is, there, nevertheless, remained months before the close of the session, and abundant opportunity for the transaction of all the possible business of Congress by dayhght. I might dwell on many objections to giving my countenance to this three o'clock appointment. I will detain you with only a few of them; and with but glances at these. 1. Some members of Congress are, either from age or other causes, too feeble to be com- 17 386 FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. pelled, unless in a case of absolute necessity, to leave their beds, at sucli an unusual liour for leaving tbem. 2. At this sleepy hour, few persons are in a state for tlie wise and safe transaction of important business. 3. As tlie friend of temperance, both my lips and example shall ever testify against any night-session of Congress, that is not called for by the clearest necessity. What if the majority had appointed the taking of the vote on the ISTebraska question, in a dramshop ? Would you have had me present? I trust not. But are you, yet, to learn, that the scenes of a night-session of Congress do not, always, differ, in all respects, from the scenes of a dramshop ? I was present, a part of the night-session, in which the final vote on the Nebraska bill was taken; and I was well convinced, that Con- gress should avoid all unnecessary night-sessions, until Congress loves temperance more, and rum less. Never did I witness more gross drunkenness, than I witnessed on that occasion. I had to remain until eleven o'clock — ^for I had to remain, until I could record my vote against the pro-slavery bill. After that, I hurried away, full of shame and sorrow. It so happened, that Lord Elgin, the Governor of Canada, sat by my side, for an hour or more, during that evening of sad recollections. The drunkenness was perceived by him, as well as by myself I might rather say, it glared upon his observation, as well as upon my own. It was, certainly, very polite and kind FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. 887 in Hm to tell me, as lie did, in the coTirse of our con- versation respecting tMs disgraceful scene, tliat he had witnessed shameful disorder in the British Parliament. ISTevertheless, his politeness and kindness did not relieve me of my deep mortification. But, Jl shall, perhaps, be told, that were it, once, understood, that the friends of temperance, and decency, and good hours, refuse to appear in Con- gress, the latter part of the night ; advantage would be taken of the refusal, and that part of the night would be chosen for mischievous and wicked legisla- tion. This supposes two things, however, neither of which, I trust, is supposable. It supposes, 1st, that a majority of the members of Congress would be guilty of such an outrage ; and, 2d, that the people would be patient under it. Had the Nebraska bill been passed by calling us from our beds at three o'clock, the people would have seen, in this disgrace- ful fact, another and a strong reason for condemning this bill and its supporters. I proceed to notice another, and, so far as I know, the only other, passage in my Congressional history, that has provoked the public censure. I spoke in favor of annexing Cuba to the United States: — and this, too, even though the slavery of that island were not previously abohshed. For having so spoken, I have seen myself held up in the newspapers as a filt- busier. But I had supposed the filibuster to be one, 388 FIJSIAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. wlio would get Cuba either by violence or by money , and, in the speecli referred to, I expressly discarded both these means. The union between Cuba and the United States, which I approved, is peaceful, and with- out purchase. It is to take place, on the sole condition of the choice of the two parties — ^the people of Cuba and the people of the United States. Their choice of the union authorizes the union : and, that too, even though all other peoples, Spain herself included, forbid it. Indeed, it was only to illustrate the leading doctrine of that part of my speech — ^the doctrine, that peoples may unite and divide, as themselves, not as others, please — that I made my reference to Cuba. But whom do I mean by the people of Cuba ? The public suppose, that I of course, mean little else than the handful of slaveholders, aristocrats, and tyrants, upon that island. But, I do not consent to be conclud- ed by their supposition. I do not consent to wear their spectacles, nor to be measured by their measuring-line, nor to be interpreted by their laws of interpretation. It is now more than a dozen years, since I stood up to read, in a very large assembly, my " Address to the Slaves of the United States." This Address acknow- ledges slaves to be of the people, and of equal rights with any other portion of the people ; and, I add, that it, therefore, made me more enemies than any other paper I had ever written. I stop not now to justify anything in that paper. All my reason for referring FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. 889 to it is, to say, that, whetlier its doctrines are true or false, tliej should, at least, serve to sMeld me from the imputation of ignoring slaves, when I speak of the people. Whomsoever others mean, when thej speak of the people of Cuba, I mean, when I speak of them, the black, as well as the white— the bond, as well as the free. If the poor, outraged slaves of that island prefer to be identified with the institutions, for- tunes, and prospects, of our country, such preference should be allowed to weigh as much, as the like pre- ference of any other equal portion of her people. To say, that their ^'poor, poor, dumb mouths" are to be unheeded, and that they are to be denied annexation to the people of the United States, unless their slavery is previously abolished, is as imreasonable, as to say, that the Canadians shall not be annexed tons, until the land-monopoly, which oppresses so many of them, is abolished. The calamities of neither the one, nor the other, are to be allowed to work a forfeiture of their rights. Now, are the people of Cuba, in my sense of the word people, in favor of uniting Cuba with our na- tion? If they are, then, and only then, so far as Cuba is concerned, am I in favor of it. Are the people of the United States in favor of it ? I can answer for but one of them : and my answer is, that I am. Why am I ? I need not explain why, aside from the existence of slavery in Cuba, I am in favor of the union— for, 890 FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. aside from tliat, wlio are not in favor of it ? It is from my conclusion, tliat tTie people of the United States should be wilhng to unite with the people of Cuba, even though Cuban slavery be not previously abolish- ed, that so many dissent. It is not because geographical, and commercial, and various kindred considerations do so loudly call for the blending of Cuba with our country, that, in spite of my being an abolitionist, I go for it. It is because I am an abohtionist, more than because I am anything else, that I desire this blending. With the slaves of no part of the world have I sym- pathized more deeply than with the slaves of Cuba — for theirs is the cruellest and most brutifying of all the types of bondage. Practically, American slavery is not so bad as Spanish ; though, in theory, it is more absolute and abominable than any other. Happily for its victuns, American slavery encounters, and is modi- fied by, a higher civilization than that, which pervades the dominions of Spain, and rejoices in bull-fights. As an abohtionist then, and as one, who feels pity for every slave, I should be glad to see the condition of the slaves of Cuba bettered by the substitution of American usages and American influences for Spanish usages and Spanish influences. And who knows but American laws, in regard to slavery, will, ere long, be " rightly interpreted ?" The hope, (though not strong,) that they may be, and the fact, that thereby American FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. 891 slavery would be "■ short-lived," did somewliat encour- age me, as the reader of the speech in question has seen, "to risk the subjection of Cuban slavery to a common fate with our own." Again, as an abolitionist, I desire the annexation of Cuba to our country, because that would end the con- nection of Cuba with the Afi-ican slave trade; and would, also, go far to end that trade, everywhere. I do not forget the charge, that American slaveholders are in favor of reopening that trade with this country. But, I know, that the charge is nonsensical. Not only does their interest forbid it : but. I do them no more than justice when I say, that their civilization forbids it. They have outgrown the barbarism of the African slave trade. May they speedily outgrow other barbar- isms, which fall but httle short of it ! I said, that, for having made the speech referred to — I mean my speech on the Mexican Treaty — ^the newspapers have called me a " filibuster." They have called me " pro-slavery" also. But if to be in favor of annexing Cuba to our nation makes me " pro-slavery" then I have been "pro-slavery" for years, as those of you know, who, for years, have heard me speak in favor of it. I readily admit, that if I stood on the platform, occupied by many anti-slavery men, and had a creed made up of nothing else than " no more slave territory," I should deserve to be stigmatized as " pro- slavery" for consentmg to have Cuba come with her 392 FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. slavery into our nation — for then, according to my own creed, I slionld be " pro-slavery." But, I thank God, that he has not left me to take my stand on that nar- row platform, nor on any other like it. My anti-slav- ery creed recognizes no law, anywhere, for the highest possible crime against the interests, and rights, and nature of man. In other words, I know no law for the slavery, which exists in any of the present, or which shall exist, in any of the future, territory of this nation — no law for the enslavement of any one, either in Cuba or America. I care not what Statute- books, or even Constitutions, may say to the contrary. To every man, who has a soul in him — ^to every man, that is a man — ^truth and honesty are infinitely more authoritative than Statute-books and Constitutions : — and, by all, that is precious in truth and honesty, I will never enforce as law, nor even know as law, against another, that which, if apphed to myself, all, that is within me, would scorn and scout as law. The apprehension, that American slavery would be made strong and enduring by the accession of Cuban slavery, is not well founded. Such a new element in our slavery might, for various reasons, contribute very effectively to work the ruin of the whole. But, how- ever this may be, who, that desires the overthrow of American slavery, does not rejoice, that France and England and other nations have, in our day, rid them- selves of slavery, and arrayed their influence, if not FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. 393 designedlj, nevertheless none the less effectually, against American slavery ? And who of them should not rejoice to see Spain also quit the pro-slavery party — the party of pro-slavery nations — to join the anti- slavery party, and the party of anti-slavery nations ? But to rid her of Cuba is thus to change her relations and influence. Let all the other nations of the earth shake themselves of slavery — even though it be into the lap of America. For were the whole of the foul thing gathered there, no sympathy with it could be found elsewhere ; and, hence, its years would be few; I trust, that, in the hght of what I have said, the injustice of calling me " pro-slavery "will be apparent. Whilst he is "pro-slavery," who would extend slavery over lands, where it does not exist, it does not follow, that he is "pro-slavery," either in the aims, or in the effect, of his policy, who would collect more of exist- ing slavery under the same Government. The wish of Caligula, that all the necks of the Eomans were brought into one neck, that so he might have the pleasure of decapitating his subjects at a single blow, was certainly not a very amiable wish. But we would all excuse the wish to have all the necks of slavery brought into one neck, if that would facilitate the kilHng of the monster. With this question of the annexation of Cuba our patriotism has much to do, and in both directions. Under its promptings, there are many, who would add to the honor of our country, by adding to her territory ; 1 -r-x- 394 FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. and, -ander its promptings, tliere are qnite as many, wlio are unwilling to add to her dishonor, by adding to her slavery. But neither in the one case, nor in the other, are the promptings of patriotism to be trusted. For patriotism is not a virtue, but a vice. Least of all, is it a Christian grace. In all that compound of affec- tions and interests, called patriotism, there is not one element, which finds sanction in the lips or life of Jesus Christ. Admit, if you please, that patriotism does not exhibit the most revolting forms of selfishness. Never- theless, it is nothing, even in its most attractive phases, but modifications of selfishness. Philanthropy, and not patriotism, should be permitted to decide the ques- tion, whether we are at liberty to receive Cuba. No pride of country, and no shame, that stands in connec- tion with such pride, should be allowed any part, or influence, in the decision. Our equal love to our bro- ther, whoever he may be, and wherever he may be ; whatever his comj)lexion or condition ; and whether his home be on this side, or on that, of whatever national boundary ; — ^it is this fraternal love, ever indis- solubly connected with true fihal love toward his and our common Father, which should, alone, be allowed to decide the question whether, if Cuba wishes to come to us, we will open our arms to receive her. I close my letter with saying, that it is not the great amount of slavery, that should most concern us. It is rather the weakness of the force, arrayed against it. FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. 395 Did tlie anti-slavery men of our country occupy the only true ground — ^th.8 ground, that there cannot, pos- sibl}^, be any Constitutional, or other legal, shelter for slavery — the ground, that the piratical system, which robs its victims of every right, and exposes them to every wrong, is, necessarily, an outlaw — it would be comparatively unimportant, whether they had much, or little, slavery to contend with. They would, surely and speedily, triumph, in either case. However small the amount of slavery, it will last forever, so far as anti-slavery men are concerned, provided they continue to acknowledge its legahty, and to busy themselves in the folly of setting limits to this rampant, vaulting, matchless crime. On the other hand, however large the amount of slavery, it would quickly disappear before the influences, which the anti-slavery men would muster against itj were they to take the position, that, within no limits, not even the narrowest, has slavery any rights, or can it have any ; and that within no limits, not even the narrowest, does it deserve anything better than the sentence of outlawry and death, at the hands of all mankind. Let the anti-slavery men of om- country take this position, and they will be no more afraid, than I am, to have Cuban slavery come to us. Kay, they will then bid it come : for they will then know, that if it do come, it will come, not to be wedded to our slavery. 896 FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. but to die with it : that it will come, not to a bridal; but a burial. Yery respectfully, yours, Gereit Smith. The following extract from a letter of Mr. Smith to Wendell PhilLips, dated February 20, 1855, is a further defence of his position in regard to the annexation of Cuba to the United States. *' The type of slavery in Cuba is, in some respects, more terrible than in any other part of the world. The family relation, which, elsewhere, softens the horrors of slavery, is to a great extent, unknown among the slaves of Cuba. The breeding of our own slaves is an alleviating feature ta our slavery: and slavery is light in the breeding States, compared with what it is in the other States. Plantation after planta- tion m Cuba has hundreds of males, and scarcely one female. The condition and character of the laborers on such plantations are, therefore, as brutal, as they well can be. Agaia, so severe is the treatment of the Cuban slaves, that they die under it, in a few years. The slaves of our own country live, on an average, more than thirtv vears. The slaves of Cuba much less LETTEK TO WENDELL PHILLIPS. 897 than half tliat time : and, hence, as I pitj them, I wonld have Cuba annexed. I would have her annexed too, as I pity Africa, who is, every year, robbed of thou- sands of her children to supply the murderous waste of life in Cuba. But, more than all, do I desire the annexation, because I believe it will contribute, mighti- ly, to the overthrow of the whole system of American slavery. "1. It will change Spain into an anti-slavery nation: and, then, not only will she be arrayed against Ameri- can slavery, but other nations— especially France and England — disembarrassed by her change, will be far more cordially and effectively arrayed against it than they have hitherto been. "2. The Spanish troops, that, now, uphold slavery in Cuba, will, then, be recalled ; and the Creole population of more than half a million will, then, be the depend- ence for maintaining slavery. But that population, never having possessed political power, and, therefore, ignorant how to use it ; having strong sympathies with the quarter of a million of free blacks, both from being legally intermarried with them to a considerable extent, and from having but little more intelligence, (for the free blacks have schools,) and also from other causes ; would be but a poor dependence for maintaining slavery. Indeed, where have Spanish Creoles proved their readi- ness and ability to uphold slavery ? Certainly not in Mexico and the South-American States. There they 898 LETTER TO WENDELL PHILLIPS. proved tliemselves to be abolitionists, after they bad escaped fi^om tbe control of tbe Spaniards. The truth is, that the Spanish Creoles are too nearly on a level with the free blacks, in point of circumstances and in- telhgence, and, therefore, of power, to be rehed on to uphold slavery. There must, in some important re- spects, be a wide space between masters and slaves, or the slaves cannot be kept in subjection. "3. Cuban slavery is so different a thing from Amer- ican slavery, that it cannot coexist with it, unless brought into conformity with it. But to attempt the conformity would be most strongly to invite an insur- rection. The Cuban slave has the legal right to go, every year, in quest of a new master. Moreover, it rests with an of6.cer of the Government to fix his price, in case of disagreement on that point. He has the legal right to buy himself — ^to buy himself, all at once, or, in parts — a quarter at one time, and a half at another — as is most convenient for him. Then, again, if the slave-mother shall pay a small sum (I believe but twenty-five dollars,) before the birth of her child, the child shall be free. Now, will the slaves — ^will the free blacks — ^will the Creoles — suffer these merciful features to be expunged from the system of Cuban slavery? Certainly not, until much blood has been spilt. I add, will the free blacks suffer their schools to be closed ? — for the closing of them will be an indispensable part of tlie conformity of Cuban slavery to American slavery. LETTER TO WENDELL PHILLIPS. 899 "4. Bnt it will be said, that if a standing army of twenty or tliirty thousand Spanish troops can maintain slavery in Cuba, so, also, can a no greater standing American army maintain it there. A several times greater army than this will be required to sustain the attempt to impart to Cuban slavery the absolute cha- racter of our slavery. Arouse the hostility of the free blacks, among whom are men of genius and educa- tion ; combine with them the nearly half million of slaves, the very large majority of whom are from Africa, and are as barbarous, as when they left her shores; and the victory to be achieved by our standing army would be no easy one. A bloody grave for slavery did these classes of men dig in St. Domingo : and a no less bloody one may they dig for slavery in Cuba. Moreover, that grave may be capacious enough for the whole of American slavery. Let our infatuated slave power get Cuba, if it can. I gTcatly mistake, if when she shall have added these new elements to our popula- tion, she does not find, that she has got more than she contracted for. Ere leaving this head, I will say, that, to propose, in the event of the annexation of Cuba, a standing army for the maintenance of her slavery, is sheer nonsense. The days of our slavery, if not, in- deed, of our republic will be numbered, whenever we shall adopt the policy of a standing army for uphold- ing slavery. "5. Havana is Cuba, as emphatically as Paris is 400 LETTER TO WENDELL PHILLIPS France. Admit, that quietness — altliouglL, by tlie way, it is an ever fearful and anxious quietness — is maintained there. We should, nevertheless, remember, that it is maiatained only by means of such a strict and stern police, and such an iron despotism, as would be impossible, amidst the institutions and influence of our repubhc. Impose only republican restraints upon Havana, and anarchy would quick spread through her, and through the island. "6. Let it not be said, that, because the slaves of Louisiana and Florida passed quietly into our pohtical jurisdiction, the slaves of Cuba will, also. Not to speak of essential differences in their circumstances, the former slaves were but a handfal, compared with the latter. "I say no more of the annexation of Cuba. Whilst I hope, that it would help work the overthrow of slavery, without violence ; I am confident, that it would help work it, in some way." L B T T E E TO FREDERICK DOUGLASS. [This letter -was published by Mr. Douglass in his newspaper.] Peterboro, August 28, 1854. Fredeeick Douglass : My Dear Friend: — I see, in jour last paper, your letter to myself. I sliall take great pleasure in answer- ing your questions, since you are of tlie number of those, wliose wishes I am especially glad to gratify. 1. As you are aware, I went to Congress with very little hope of the peaceful termination of Ameri- can slavery. I have returned with less. I still see no evidence, that the North will act effectually for such termination — for I still see no evidence, that it will act honestly for it. It is true, that I learn of anti-lSTebras- ka indignation meetings, all over the North. But this does not greatly encourage me. It is repentance, not indignation, which the North needs to feel, and to 402 LETTER TO FEEDEEICK DOUGLASS. manifest. It becomes not the Nortli to be angry with the South about the Nebraska bill, or about any other pro-slavery thing. Her duty is to confess her shame and sorrow, that her political, ecclesiastical, and com- mercial influence has gone to uphold slavery, and to deceive the but-too-willing-to-be-deceived South into the belief, that slavery is right, or, at least, excusable. Had there been such confession, there would- have been no Nebraska bill to get angry about, or to make party capital of. Had there been such confession, the South would have no heart to.extend slavery. All her con- cern would have been to abolish it. Now, for the North to be honest in the matter of slavery, is to treat it as they would any other great crime ;■ and, therefore, to deny, that there can be a law for it. It is, in a word, to do unto others, in that matter, as they would have others do unto them, in it. Do the people of the North believe, that they would honor and obey slavery, as law, should it ever lay claim to their own necks? If they do not, then they are dishonest, in acknowledging it to be law, when others are its victims. Is it said, that the honesty, which I here commend, would exasperate the South? I answer, that it would go far to conquer the South. Let the North say: ''We have sinned against our enslaved brother, in acknow- ledging, that the immeasurable crime against him is capable of the obligations and sacredness of law. LETTER TO FREDERICK DOUGLASS. 403 We will do so no more — ^whatever Constitutions and Statutes may require of us, and however great tlie losses we may suffer in our trade, and in our political and religious party connexions." Let the North speak such words of penitence and principle — and the South will listen. <'When the JSTorthern heart begins to melt, the Southern heart, also, will begin to melt^^ It is demonstrations of our honesty, not of our cun- ning, which are needed to influence and convert the South. The tricks, which Northern Legislatures have resorted to, or threatened to resort to, for the purpose of evading, or nullifying, the fugitive servant clause of the Constitution and the fugitive servant statutes of Con- gress, can have no tendency to inspire the South either with the fear of us, or the love of us. I need not say it for the ten thousandth time — ^that my eyes detect no slavery in the Constitution, and that I utterly deny, that the attempt to smuggle slavery into it was, at all, successful. But the gTcat mass of the Northern people widely disagree with me, at this point; and, hence, Yfhat is required of them by the spirit of truth and the God of truth is, not to practice indirection and fraud, but frankly to acknowledge, that the South has their bond, and that so wicked is the bond, that conscience constrains them to refuse, at whatever hazard, to fulfil it. I referred to the fact, that my hope of the bloodless termination of American slavery is less now than it 404 LETTER TO FREDERICK DOUGLASS. was, wlien I went to Congress. I confess, tliat I did liope to find some Southern men there, who are wilhng to aid in bringing about such a termination. But I found none of them, who are wilhng to hfb so much, as a finger, to this end. A few Southern members of Congress seek, by means of nonsensical and wicked speculations on the nature of the African and on the Divine.purposes, to persuade themselves, that slavery is right in itself As a matter of course, such contend, that slavery should endure forever. But even with the mass of them, the case is very little more hopeful. It is true, that they admit, that slavery is, in itself, an evil. But they will do nothing to put an end to it. They had rather amuse themselves with the notion, that Colonization will drain it off, or with some other equal- ly great absurdity — if, indeed, there is, or can be, any other as great. The more, however, that I know of this class of Southern men, the more satisfied I am, that even those of them, who are the most deeply con- vinced of the wrongfulness of slavery, regard the evil as too formidable for their little courage to grapple with. They are cowed in the presence of its magni- tude : and they prefer to let it roll on to an indefinite future, and to a posterity, which, they hope, will have more advantages than now exist, for happily disposing of it. 2. You ask, if the anti-slavery cause has anything to hope for from the present Congress. It has not. LETTER TO FREDERICK DOUGLASS. 405 What can Liberty hope from a Congress, that commits so heinous a crime against her, as to pass the Nebraska bill ? "What from a House of Eepresentatives, not fifty- members of which dared to say, that they were in favor of repealing the Fugitive Slave Act ? 8. You -wish my opinions of the influence of the anti-slavery members of Congress. I had rather give you my opinions of the members; and, then, you can judge for yourself what must be the character and"" extent of the influence, which they exert. I take it for granted, that you mean by anti-slavery members those only, who are known as abolitionists, and who accept the reproach of being abolitionists. Chase is wise, learned, upright. He is an able lawyer and an able statesman. His range of thought and information is wide ; and, even without special preparation, he can speak well on the subjects, that come before him. Sumner is not so read}^ and versatile, as Chase. But put into his hands a subject, which interests his heart — Peace or Freedom, for instance — and give him time to elaborate it — and where is the man, who can speak or write better? Sumner is as guileless and ingenuous as a child: and, hence, my astonishment at the base and ferocious feeling manifested toward him, at one period of the session. Chase and Sumner are gentlemen — Christian gentlemen. Great is my love of them: and were I to add, "passing the love of 406 LETTER TO FREDERICK DOUGLASS. women," I sliould not be guilty of great extrava- gance. Gillette lias been in the Senate but a short time: — long enoTigli, however, to give evidence, that he has a sound head and a sound heart. He loves the anti- slaver j cause, as well as Chase and Sumner; and sur- passes them in zeal for the no less precious cause of temperance. To come to the abolitionists in the House. All know "Old Giddings." An able man is he. His rough, strong, common sense is worth infinitely more than the refinement and polish of which so many light- minded men are vain. He is ready and powerful in debate. An honest and fearless man, too, is he. I shall never forget the many proofs which I witnessed of his unflinching devotion to the right and the true. If his severity upon slaveholders is, sometimes, excess- ive, nevertheless it is not for them to complain of it- He learned it of them. Or, to say the least, it is a very natural retaliation for the wrongs and outrages, which, for a dozen or fifteen years, they have been industriously heaping upon him. Greatly do I rejoice to see that the friends of freedom have taken him up for another election to Congress. They honor them- selves in honoring him. There should not be one vote against him. I must not fail to advert, in this connexion, to my great obligations to Mr. Giddings for the assistance, LETTER TO FREDERICK DOUGLASS. 407 wliich he so kindly and generously afforded me, in my ignorance of tlie rules of tlie House. We turn, next, to Edward Wade, of Ohio. A stranger, looking over the House, would make no account of that black little fellow, who sits in one corner of it. But let him read Edward Wade's remarkably strong speech on the Nebraska bill, or hear one of his pithy five minutes speeches, and he will find that he has another occasion for applying the Saviour's injunction : "Judge not according to the appearance." Wade is an eminently conscientious and rehgious man. I am glad to see, that he, too, is nominated for another election to Congress.- He should be, as often as he is willing to take the nomination. Colonel DeWitt of Massachusetts was sick much of the session. All, who were so fortunate, as to become acquainted with him, were impressed with his good sense, generous disposition, and agTceable man- ners. As Davis of Ehode Island was chosen by the Demo- cratic party, that party may not thank me for calling him an abohtionist. Nevertheless, he is one. He has a brother's heart for every human being, and that makes him an abohtionist. I sat next to him, dm-ing the whole session : and I esteemed it no small privilege to sit, for so long a time, by the side of one, who is so sincere, so affectionate, so philanthropic. Davis is a plain, but forcible, speaker. The city of Providence 408 LETTER TO FREDERICK DOUGLASS. owes Mm mucL. for his effective speeclies in behalf of a large (perhaps, too large) appropriation for building her custom-house. I have, now, spoken of all the abolitionists in Congress, save myself: and, since, in the judgment of many, I have fallen from abolition grace, I had better not speak of myself. Do not exult over my apostacy. Even you, though a literally " died in the wool" aboli- tionist, should rather be admonished by my apostacy to take heed lest you yourself fall. 4. In answer to your fourth question, I would say, that all the members of Congress, who belong to the Whig or Democratic party, are necessarily " sup- porters of slavery." Every national party in this coun- try must be pro-slavery. The South will come into no party, and abide in no party, that is anti-slavery. I cheerfully admit, that there is many a Whig, and that there is many a Democrat, earnestly anti-slavery. ISTevertheless, their individual influence against slavery is as nothing compared with their party influence /?r it. As well may a man, with a mill-stone tied to his neck, try to save his drowning fellows, as a Whig or a Demo- crat try, under his heavy pro-slavery load, to promote the anti-slavery cause. His anti-slavery endeavors, however sincere, are all frustrated by his pro-slavery party connexion: and that connexion must be dis- solved ere he can give effect to those endeavors. Our national parties, ecclesiastical, as well as political, LETTER TO FREDERICK DOUGLASS. 409 once abolislied and the peaceful death, of slavery would be a speedy event. But the great reason, why we are denied the prospect of this happy event, is that the members of these parties love them too well, and are too far under their infatuating influence, to consent to their abolition. 5. I proceed to answer your last inquiry. There are in the House a number of gentlemen of remarkable capacity and training for the transaction of business. Conspicuously among them are Haven of New- York and Orr of South-Carolina, and Phelps of Missouri — all three of whom are not only judicious, and clear- headed, but swift, in business. Breckenridge of Ken- tucky is, perhaps, behind none of them. He gave us but few specimens of his powers. They were suffi- cient, however, to prove, that his very keen and vigor- ous intellect is habituated to business. Judging from the admirable discharge of his duties, as Speaker, Boyd of Kentucky must be, in all respects, one of the best business men in the House. Letcher of Yirginia, and Jones of Tennessee, are as expert in stopping business, as any members of the House are in doing it : and to stop business is, oftentimes, more meritorious and useful than to do it. Chandler of Pennsylvania, is prominent among the scholars of the House. Judge Perkins of Louisiana, struck me ai? a gentleman of very great refinement, both in mind and manner. F. P. Stanton has a rich and beautiful mind. Its turn is as speculative, as 18 410 LETTER TO FREDERICK DOUGLASS. K. H. Stanton's is practical. The former of these bro- thers lives in Tennessee. The latter in Kentucky. AVith the single exception of Eichard, who is all facts nnd figures, the whole Stanton family, in several of its generations, is highly poetical. The House can boast of wits, also. E^ving of Ken- tucky, is inferior to none of them. I could name several members of the House who are decidedly eloquent. Grov. Smith of Virginia, with his lively mind, smooth and ready utterance, and various other qualities, must be very effective " on the stump." I wish Banks of Massachusetts, would lay hold of themes worthy of his fine powers of oratory. He would find it easier to be eloquent on them than on inferior subjects. Indeed, a great cause is itself eloquence ; and the most, which he, who speaks for it, needs to do, is to stand out of its way, and let it speak for itself Benton in respect to his remarkable fulness of poHti- cal knowledge, and, in some other respects also, is, of course, the great man of the House. But he is not the only strong man there. There are more than twenty in that body, who deserve to be called strong men. There is no lack of talent in it. I wish I could add, that there is no lack of morals and manners in it. But, whilst some of the members are emphatically gentle- men, in their spirit and in their personal habits, there are more of them who use profane language, or defile themselves with tobacco, or poison themselves Avith mm. I trust, that tlie dav has alreadv dawned, in LETTER TO FREDERICK DOUGLASS. 411 which, it will not be allowed, that gentlemen can be guilty of such coarse and insulting wickedness, of such sheer nastiness, and of such low and mad sensuality. You were a slave, until you had reached manhood. Hence, the world is surprised, that you have risen into the highest class of pubhc writers and public speakers. It is no less cause of surprise, however, that you are a dignified and refined gentleman. Nevertheless, gentleman, and scholar, and orator, as you are, there are strenuous objections to your taking your seat in Congress. How ludicrous a figure, in the eye of rea- son, is that member of Congress (and there are more than fifty such !) who, in one breath, swears, that he would not so disgrace himself, as to sit by the side of " Fred. Douglass ; " and who, in the next breath, squirts his tobacco juice upon the carpet ! I became pretty well acquainted with nearly all the members of the House. In very many of them there was much to please me — much, indeed, to win my affectionate regards. Nevertheless, I could not be blind to the glaring fact, that Congress preeminently needs to witness the achievements of the Temperance reform- ation, and the Tobacco reformation, and the religion of Jesus Christ. Your friend, Gerrit Smith. LETTER TO HON. H. C. GOODWIN. The session that Mr. Smitli was in Congress, a bill was reported in favor of tlie sufferers from Frencli spoliations. Mr. Smitli took a deep interest ia it, and hoped that it might be acted upon before the close of the Session. But he hoped in yaia. The protracted discussion on the Nebraska bill shut out many other discussions. The following letter indicates Mr. Smith's opinion of the merits of the French spoliation biQ. * Peterboro, January 5, 1855. Hon. H. C. Goodwik, M. C. : Bear Sir : — I am happy to see, in the proceedings of the House of Kepresentatives, the proposition to take up the bni for the relief of the sufferers by French spoliations. I am not among these sufferers: and, I do not know, that I have a relative among them. Nevertheless, I deeply desire the s\iccess of the bill. 414 LETTER TO HON. H. C. GOODWIN. Pardon me for asking you, to inquire into tlie merits of tlie bill, if you have not done so already. I confess, that I am all the more free to take this hberty, not only from the fact, that you represent my Congressional District, but from the fact, that you occupy the seat, which the pressure of my far too extensive private business compelled me to resign. We must remember the condition of our country in 1778, in order to estimate rightly the value to her of the treaties, which she made with France^ in that year. The American cause was then strugghng through its darkest period ; and, unless help should come, it could never emerge. Help did come — ^timely and abundant help. Those treaties brought it. France joined hands with us. Our liberty was achieved : — and the Ameri- cans, like the delivered Jews, " had light and gladness and joy and honor." But the deliverance of our country did not suffice to fulfill all the obligations of those treaties. We were bound to France, as strongly as France was bound to us. France had served us : and it was, now, oui- turn to serve her. But to serve her, as the treaties requir- ed us to serve her, could only be at vast expense to ourselves. France stood faithfally by us, and expended, in our cause, much blood, and some two or three hundred millions of dollars. But when the hour of her necessi- ties came, we did not stand by lier, as our Treaties re- LETTEK TO HON. H. C. GOODWIN. 415 quired us to do. She had abundant cause to complain of us. But I adixiit, that she, soon after, afforded us as abundant cause to complain of her. She pirated upon our ships, and plundered our commerce. Not ten milHons — ^perhaps not tvventy millions — could mea- sure the damage, which she thus did us. It is true, that she committed this crime, under great urgency — under temptations not easily resisted. Europe was combined against her : and she robbed our sliips to save herself from starving. It is true, too, that she, always, confessed the crime ; and, always, promised re- paration, when she should be in circumstances to make it. It is, also, true, that she did provide for it. She provided for it, by releasing us from our obhgations to herself, in consideration of our releasing her from the claims of our citizens, whom she had plundered. She ceased to be the debtor of those citizens : and our na- tion became such debtor, in her stead. Our nation came into this relation, by virtually taking private pro- perty to pay a national debt — her debt to France. I do not complain of her for doing so. I complain of her dishonesty, in never paying for this private proper- ty. Eepeatedly, has she been called on for pajonent, both by those, who lost the property, _ and by their children and children's children. Oftentimes, they have come near success. Once, the bill for their relief passed both Houses of Congress : and the chief reason, if I recollect, why the President vetoed it, was, that 416 LETTER TO HON. H. C. GOODWIN. we needed all the money in tlie Treasury for prosecut- ing our war with Mexico. I trust, that the time has now come, when these petitioners for so long delayed, so obvious, and so needed, justice will succeed in ob- taining it. But there are objections to the payment of the claims in question. The first is, that were the claims valid, they would have been paid, half a century ago. But we must bear in mind the poverty, indebtedness, and various embarrassments of our new-born nation, during the first part of the present century. It was as difficult to pay our debts then, as it is now easy. Moreover, it must not be forgotten, that the principal proofs of the validity of these claims lay undiscovered among the files of the State Department, for some twenty-five years. Had these proofs been brought to light, when we had a fresh and strong sense of the much, which France had yielded to us, in return for our exoneration of her from the demands of our injured citizens, we would have paid these claims, notwithstanding our small ability, at that time, to pay them. In connexion with my reference to the long concealment of the chief proofs of the validity of these claims, I would state, that of the twenty-five Congressional Eeports on these claims, all, that were adverse to them, were three made during that concealment. The second objection to the payment of these claims is, that, even if thev were valid, they are now quite too LETTER TO HON. H. C. GOODWIN. 417 old to be acknowledged and paid. Snch. was tlie ob- jection, as long ago, as wlien tbe chief proofs in ques- tion were discovered. Even tlien the sense of the im- measurable value of what we had received from France had, to a great extent, died out of the pubhc mind. Even then, it was felt to be cheaper to turn the back on these claims than to acknowledge and pay them. But if the age of the claims was so influential an argu- ment against them then, much more influential wfll it be like to be now, when that age is doubled. But the argument was not then, nor is it now, entitled to any influence. At the bar of a sound conscience a just claim is never outlawed — ^never obsolete — ^never stale. We have been guilty of a very deep wrong, in not pay- ing these claims, long ago. Shall we also be guilty of taking advantage of our own deep wrong, and of making our unjust delay to pay these claims an excuse for dis- owning them, and casting them aside ? Another objection to the paying of these claims is, that they were provided for under treaties, subsequent to the Convention of 1800 — namely, the Louisiana Treaty ; the Florida Treaty ; and Eives' Treaty. My answer to this objection is 1st that it is not true : 2d that, if true, nevertheless the bill provides against pay- ing any of these claims, so far as they are provided for in those treaties: and 8d that, whether the objection is true or false, the claims have not been paid. Another objection ip, that the claims ore in the hands 18^- • 418 LETTER TO HON. H. C. GOODWIN. of speculators, wlio purcliased them at a great discount, and, in many instances, for a mere trifle. To tliis ob- jection I reply 1st that wherever the claims are, "we should pay them : 2d that they are not in the hands of speculators, but in the hands of the original claimants, and their descendants, and the Insurance Companies, which lost by the spoliations, and, also, to a small ex- tent, in the hands of those, to whom they were trans- ferred by the operation of bankrupt and insolvent laws : 3d that the bill provides, that the purchasers of any of these claims shall be allowed no more than they paid for them and the interest on what they paid. Another objection is, that our treaties with France were annulled by an Act of Congress in 1798 ; and that, therefore, at the time of the Convention 'of 1800, there were no treaties left to set off against our surren- der of the claims of our wronged citizens upon France, But that act did not have, and did not pretend to have, a retrospective operation. Its language im^^lied the full force of the treaties up to the time of the enactment, and during most of the spoliations. Again, the act could have no power to annul the treaties. It takes as many to unmake a bargain, as it does to make it. I>rothing is better settled than that one of the parties to a treaty is incapable of rescinding it. I pass on to consider the most relied on objection to paying these claims. It is, that we were at war with France, at, and after, the time, when they accrued ; that LETTER TO HON. H. C. GOODWIN- 419 our treaties with lier were thereby annulled ; and that, hence, Ve had not to purchase satisfaction of the treaties by imdertaking to pay the debts of France, nor by yielding any other consideration. But, in answer to this objection, we say, 1st that Ave do not admit, that these treaties could be annulled by war : 2d that we were never at war with France — war never having been declared — general reprisals never having been authoriz- ed — the provisions of Congress being expressly opera- tive, only "in case war should break out" — ^the Courts of the two nations recognizing no war between them, but both holding themselves open to the citizens of both nations : 8d that if the Convention of 1800 did not recognize, and abrogate, the treaties ; nevertheless, as amended by the additional article, in which "the two States renounce the respective pretensions, etc.," our Government clearly became responsible to satisfy the claims in question : 4th that, even if the treaties were not in fact binding upon us, nevertheless we certainly did discharge France from those claims, in order, that we might be released from the treaties ; and that, hence, it is not competent for us to devolve on the claimants the loss of our bad bargain. "Whether the bargain was good or bad, but for it the claims would liave continued to exist against France, and would have been paid by France. Only one more objection to the payment of these 420 LETTER TO HON. H. C. GOODWIN. claims remains to be noticed. It is, that tlie claimants were prosecuting tlieir business — were engaged in their commercial pursuits — at tlieir own risk. But, if it was at their own risk, nevertheless our Government was bound to seek redress for the wrongs and losses, which the claimants suffered. The Government did seek such redress ; and it did obtain it. But it proved a faithless agent. Instead of pa3dng over to its principals the in- demnity, which it obtained for them, it put that indem- nity into its own pocket, and kept it there. Moreover, is it right to say, that the commerce in question was carried on, at the sole risk of the claimants? By no. means. There was not only the general obligation of Government to protect, in all such cases ; — ^but in this case our Government had especially bound itself to en- deavor to get indemnity, for losses. At the time it did so, our Government was so poor, as to be vitally inter- ested in the continuance and extension of our foreign commerce. Its empty Treasury was in the most urgent need of the duties on imports. Accordingly, the Secre- tary of State, Mr. Jefferson, upon the order of Presi- dent Washington, issued a paper, as early as the year 1793, encouraging our merchants, who had embarked in this business, to face its risks ; by promising them the interposition of Government for their safety. But I will bring my, perhaps, too long letter to a close. We have seen, that the objections to these claims •% " LETTER TO HON. H. C. GOODWIN. 421 are unreasonable, and, altogetlier, imwortlij of admis- sion. We liaye seen, that, by every just consideration they should be paid. Does the bill provide too large a sum for their payment ? The sum is far too small. It provides but five milhons of dollars, though the claims amount, including interest, to probably thirty or forty jnilhons of dollars. In the year 1800, our Ministers of- fered a million and a half of dollars to purchase our re- lease from tm) of the articles in our treaties with France. But France would not have sold the release for treble tha ' sum. She did, however, discharge us, from all our treaty obhgations to her, in consideration of our dis- charging her from these claims of our plundered citizens. It is noteworthy, that the miUion and a half of dollars amount, with the interest thereon, to far more than the bill proposes we shall pay. I must not omit to remind you, that the authority of many of the greatest names in our early history — ^names both of jurists and statesmen — even Marshall and Madison and Jefferson — ^is on the side of the undoubted justice of these claims. In the name of justice, of humanity, of decency, let not Congress again turn away these meritorious claim- ants. If we are not willing to pay them ten millions, let us, at least, be wiUing to pay them five. Let us pay something on these claims, whilst, as yet, there are gi'andchildren of the original sufferers to receive it. 422 LETTER TO HON. H. C. GOODWIN. Most of those sufferers and tlieir immediate descend- ants liave gone down to tlie grave : and, in many instances, tlieir last years were years of bitter pov- erty, because of our injustice. I repeat it, let us pay them something, ere not only the original claimants, and their children, but their grandchildren also, shall have passed beyond the reach of our returning sense of justice. Let me here remark, that our Government has provided indemnity, to the amount of many mil- lions, for other French spoliations on our commerce, and for British, and Spanish, and Danish, and other yet spoliations on it. But no provision has it made to re- lieve the sufferers in this instance. Cruel discrimina- tion ! — and as causeless as cruel ! I said causeless. It is worse than this — ^for the claims before us are espe- cially obhgatory — are peculiarly sacred. But it is not alone from regard to the claimants, that we should pay these claims. It is also due to the honor and the heart of France. She inflicted a deep wrong upon many of our citizens. It is true, that, at a great price, she purchased reparation for this deep wrong. But the reparation was never made : — and, until it is, not only will her sense of humanity be pained, but her merit, in purchasing the reparation, will lack its crown- ing glory. I scarcely need add, that our own nation wiU be dishonored in the eyes of other nations, until we shall have performed this duty, which France LETTER TO HON. H. C. GOODWIN. 423 boTiglit US to perform ; wliich, now, whilst our Trea- sury is overflowing, it is so easy to perform ; and wliicli cannot be postponed again, without manifesting a stranger insensibihty than ever to the calls of justice and humanity. Respectfully yours, Gerrit Smith. 627 ^M .^^' X ^ .0 'O ' ^ x -^ I' /' o"^' ^^. .'^* ' ~'J' ,<;- c- V' ^' a= v^' %■ - ^ v , '^ _ ' .V <, s <^^ -^H y >'^ /■ ■^A 0^ ,-0 ^>^ 0^ ^ .^^ ^r. ■-. \ > n- ■!i rt^ 'o_^ ' 0' ■7- s ' ' ^N. c- ^^' ^^. <^' ■^^ ^^ Vx-' ,^^-^"% ^N' •>%- v' ^^ - '-P V V .- \ 1 « V 1 ':%*'-^^-' .1.^'% -^-0^ <=^^ - -y ■"-. ' , -^ ^'-■^ * 3 ^ V- .% % 4^ r^ -a ^ V? .-^ ^<-, -^ .•< ^^ ^A ^ '^^' -' ''^, ci-. ^. ^- ^ -Ta o\ ' ^ w ^;- ^ ^^. ^ 1 ^" \> s ^ ' *■ r X >* '% \^.' \ "^^ .^^^ "^^> <^^ aV<5-. .-■J.^ > i 'j! !ifif i?Vi^;